Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:00:26 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Valentino Crimi <tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer), Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kvm question Message-ID: <MqetTuS00UwH0PBLI0@andrew.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901242130.NAA21377@bubba.whistle.com> References: <199901242130.NAA21377@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Excerpts from FreeBSD-Current: 24-Jan-99 Re: kvm question by Archie Cobbs@whistle.com > Whether libkvm should even exist in a perfect world (it shouldn't) > is an entirely different question. For now, we're stuck with it > until somebody changes *everything* to use sysctl instead. Just as a question, how much of a performance difference is there between using libkvm and sysctl? If I were looking for a way to keep constant tabs on system performance with the minimal impact (think top, xsysinfo, sysstat, etc), which would I want to use if any difference exists at all? My suspicion would be that sysctl might actually be faster unless libkvm mmap's /dev/kmem so then that would elimiate the need for syscalls. libkvm may never fully die to support 3rd party software, but that is no reason to not upgrade the userland we do have control over so that ps and top will work under any kernel upgrade. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MqetTuS00UwH0PBLI0>