Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:45 -0500 Received: from mailhub2.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.2.154]:2527 "EHLO mailhub2.shef.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:21:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Guennadi Liakhovetski To: Alexander Viro cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: system call for process information? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > I need to collect some info on processes. One way is to read /proc > > tree. But isn't there a system call (ioctl) for this? And what are those > > Occam's Razor. Why invent new syscall when read() works? CPU utilisation. Each new application has to calculate it (ps, top, qps, kps, various sysmons, procmons, etc.). Wouldn't it be worth it having a syscall for that? Wouldn't it be more optimal? > > task[], task_struct, etc. about? > > What branch? (2.0, 2.2, 2.4?) Well, what I mean was - don't these structures contain the information I am looking for? Let's start from the end - 2.4, then what's the difference with 2.2 and finally 2.0? Thanks Guennadi ___ Dr. Guennadi V. Liakhovetski Department of Applied Mathematics University of Sheffield, U.K. email: G.Liakhovetski@sheffield.ac.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/