Re: [PATCH] 2.5 PROPOSAL: Replacement for current /proc of shit.

Daniel Phillips
2001-11-06T10:24:45Z

On November 5, 2001 11:48 pm, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20011105033316Z16051-18972+45@humbolt.nl.linux.org> you write:
> > Yes, sold, if implementing the formatter is part of the plan.
> >
> > Caveat: by profiling I've found that file ops on proc functions are already
> > eating a significant amount of cpu, going to one-value-per-file is going to
> > make that worse. But maybe this doesn't bother you.
>
> What concerns me most is the pain involved in writing a /proc or
> sysctl interface in the kernel today. Take kernel/module.c's
> get_ksyms_list as a typical example: 45 lines of code to perform a
> very trivial task. And this code is sitting in your kernel whether
> proc is enabled or not. Now, I'm a huge Al Viro fan, but his proposed
> improvements are in the wrong direction, IMHO.
>
> My first priority is to have the most fool-proof possible inner kernel
> interface. Second is trying to preserve some of the /proc features
> which actually work well when correctness isn't a huge issue (such as
> "give me everything in one table"). Efficiency of getting these
> things out of the kernel is a distant last (by see my previous comment
> on adapting sysctl(2)).
>
> I'd like to see /proc (/proc/sys) FINALLY live up to its promise
> (rich, logical, complete) in 2.5. We can do this by making it the
> simplest option for coders and users.

This is without a doubt the most levelheaded comment I've seen in the thread.

I'm looking at all those 6+ parameter calls and thinking about cleaning that
up with a struct, which is really what it's trying to be. I see lots of
proc reads ending with a boringly similar calc_metrics call, this is trying
to move out to the caller. I'd hope this kind of cleanup, at least, is
noncontroversial.

--
Daniel