Re: [Lse-tech] Re: 15000+ processes -- poor performance ?!

[Denis V. <vd...@po...>]

On 19 December 2002 08:27, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On 19 December 2002 00:05, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> Well, a better solution would be a userspace free of /proc/
> >> dependency.
> >> Or actually fixing the kernel. proc_pid_readdir() wants an
> >> efficiently indexable linear list, e.g. TAOCP's 6.2.3 "Linear List
> >> Representation". At that point its expense is proportional to the
> >> buffer size and "seeking" about the list as it is wont to do is
> >> O(lg(processes)).
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 01:05:03PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > A short-time solution: run top d 30 to make it refresh only every
> > 30 seconds. This will greatly reduce top's own load skew.
>
> As userspace solutions go your suggestions is just as good. The
> kernel still needs to get its act together and with some urgency.

That was just a suggestion as to how to get realistic picture
of system load for Till Immanuel Patzschke <ti...@in...>.
--
vda