From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:36:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:36:42 -0400 Received: from odyssey.netrox.net ([204.253.4.3]:38652 "EHLO t-rex.netrox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:36:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] processes with shared vm From: Robert Love To: Andi Kleen Cc: Terje Eggestad , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <997973469.7632.10.camel@pc-16.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.12.99 (Preview Release) Date: 17 Aug 2001 04:31:06 -0400 Message-Id: <998037089.1013.20.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17 Aug 2001 10:21:35 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > The basic idea is a good one (I have written a similar thing in the past ;) > Your implementation is O(n^2) however in ps, which is not acceptable. > Is there any reason your patch was not accepted? Perhaps for 2.5? This is something (along with userspace changes to take advtantage of it) that I think is really needed -- no more bogus ps/top reports. I liked Terje's idea, but obviously the scalability needs to be improved (I didn't even notice it, sadly). I would really want to see this at some point. -- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net