Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:43:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:43:15 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:3487 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:43:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:42:57 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Daniel Phillips cc: Jakob =?koi8-r?q?=3Fstergaard?= , Alex Bligh - linux-kernel , John Levon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Jansen Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff] In-Reply-To: <20011104214229Z17052-23341+37@humbolt.nl.linux.org> 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 Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Doing 'top -d .1' eats 18% of a 1GHz cpu, which is abominable. A kernel > profile courtesy of sgi's kernprof shows that scanning pages does not move > the needle, whereas sprintf does. Notice that the biggest chunk of time Huh? Scanning pages is statm_pgd_range(). I'd say that it takes seriously more than vsnprintf() - look at your own results. - 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/