Thread (8 messages) 8 messages, 2 authors, 2003-08-14

Re: Is /proc/#/statm worth fixing?

From: William Lee Irwin III <hidden>
Date: 2003-08-11 16:02:22

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:02:13AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
/proc/#/statm is a joke. Out of 7 columns, 2 are always zero in 2.6. Of
the remaining columns, at least one more is incorrect. You can most
certainly get all the intended values off /proc/#/status anyway [1].
In 2.4, more columns show actual data, but also more of them are wrong.
To top it off, 2.4 and 2.6 show vastly different numbers for several
colums (where they clearly shouldn't).
/proc/#/statm is bust and any tool relying on it is broken. Can we just
remove that file? Maybe print poisoned values in 2.6 to prevent the odd
program from crashing (if there are any), and remove it in 2.7.
I've restored a number of the fields to the 2.4.x semantics in tandem
with a forward port of bcrl's O(1) proc_pid_statm() patch.

I dumped the forward port of the patch into -wli, available at:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wli/kernels/

It's unclear how much traction it will get, as it's mildly overweight
as far as patches go, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it invasive
(opinions will vary, of course).


-- wli
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help