Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

Stuart Young
2001-11-05T04:03:33Z

At 02:52 PM 4/11/01 -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>Would the esteemed sir care to check where these cycles are spent?
>How about "traversing page tables of every damn process out there"?
>Doesn't sound like a string operation to me...

Just a quickie....

Any reason we can't move all the process info into something like
/proc/pid/* instead of in the root /proc tree?

Should be pretty easy to do, could still have the pid's in the root /proc
tree, and if they get read, do what /proc/pci does, and log a warning about
"xxx is using old /proc interfaces". Makes it just that little bit easier
to parse processes without fiddling around if you know all the dir's are
always processes. It's also a bit of a visual cleanup when you have lots of
processes and do a 'ls /proc'.

There is probably a few other things in /proc/* that could be moved out and
put in more sensible places (eg: interrupts, irq, devices, mtrr, slabinfo,
mounts, modules, stat, etc), that really define what they belong to (a
/proc/kernel/* mebbe). Having /proc basically full of directories would
clean things up a bit. Some things don't need to change though (eg: uptime,
version).

AMC Enterprises P/L - Stuart Young
First Floor - Network and Systems Admin
3 Chesterville Rd - sgy@amc.com.au
Cheltenham Vic 3192 - Ph: (03) 9584-2700
http://www.amc.com.au/ - Fax: (03) 9584-2755