Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:15:06 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ps on 4.0-current Message-ID: <33217.943431306@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:23:20 PST." <199911240723.XAA14764@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199911240723.XAA14764@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes: > I'm trying to figure out how what started as a fix to a panic turned into > such a big mess. And I don't even think the panic has even been fixed --- > it's just been made more obscure. The panic hasn't been fixed, as has been repeatedly stated, but at least a SMP machine doesn't panic when you run the 3rd command they teach you in any "UNIX for dummies" book. > In otherwords, nothing ps does blocks. I can't imagine how changing > the way arguments are fetched by encumbering procfs with even more > junk would generate a sufficient boost in performance to be either > noticeable visually or worth doing at all. Matt, lets talk about this when you have examined the code in some detail. > It would be nice if the procfs panics were fixed, but not at the cost > of all of this. The procfs panics are not fixed, I know that Allan Cox has looked at it. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33217.943431306>