Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:32:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:32:08 -0500 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:7373 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:31:49 -0500 From: "Albert D. Cahalan" Message-Id: <200103132105.f2DL5D8411265@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Subject: Re: system call for process information? To: npsimons@fsmlabs.com Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:05:13 -0500 (EST) Cc: g.liakhovetski@ragingbull.com (Guennadi Liakhovetski), viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010312195647.A32437@fsmlabs.com> from "Nathan Paul Simons" at Mar 12, 2001 07:56:47 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nathan Paul Simons writes: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:21:37PM +0000, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> 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? > > No, it wouldn't be worth it because you're talking about > sacrificing simplicity and kernel speed in favor of functionality. > This has been know to lead to "bloat-ware". Every new syscall you Bloat removal: being able to run without /proc mounted. We don't have "kernel speed". We have kernel-mode screwing around with text formatting. > add takes just a little bit more time and space in the kernel, and > when only a small number of programs will be using it, it's really > not worth it. This time and space may not be large, but once you > get _your_ syscall added, why can't everyone else get theirs added > as well? And so, after making about a thousand specialized syscalls > standard in the kernel, you end up with IRIX (from what I've heard). This isn't just for him. Many people have wanted it. > Don't even get me started about opening security holes, and > increasing code complexity. Please do a search for every other I'll get you started. Compare: 1. variable-length ASCII strings with undefined ad-hoc syntax 2. array of fixed-size (64-bit) values > ps - CPU time is cheap, that's why they don't charge for it anymore. > Programmer time is _not_. Parsing costs programmer time. - 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/