From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:02:22 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Is /proc/#/statm worth fixing? Message-ID: <20030811160222.GE3170@holomorphy.com> References: <20030811090213.GA11939@k3.hellgate.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030811090213.GA11939@k3.hellgate.ch> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Roger Luethi Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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: aart@kvack.org