Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:29:37 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: seq_put_decimal_ull() et al |
| |
(2012/03/16 20:16), Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:08 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:31:56 +0900 >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:35:54 +0200 >>> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Subject: + procfs-add-num_to_str-to-speed-up-proc-stat-fix-2.patch added to -mm tree >>>> >>>> I think the fix is to create proper binary interface for exporting >>>> interrupt counts. >>>> Programs can parse raw data equally well if programming language is >>>> even minimally reasonable >>>> (POSIX shell may not qualify, though). >>> >>> Ok, please try with all tool-chain updates. >>> procps, top, sar, and more ? >>> > > Well, why not? > We can tune print code or we can create maximally fast interface and forget. >
Do you have an idea where to place it ? /proc/stat_binary ? /proc/binary/stat ?
Hm, to parse /proc/stat binary format, the user has to know the format of the kernel version.
Do we show a format file as /proc/binary/stat_format and show # cat /proc/binary/stat_format =IHHHIHIQQQIHQQ...
as python's pack/unpack ? or export the format via /usr/include/linux/proc_format.h ? as a structure ?
any better idea ?
Thanks, -Kame
| |