Hallo, * Samuel Thibault [Tue, Aug 25 2015, 10:52:29PM]: > Eduard Bloch, le Tue 25 Aug 2015 22:34:17 +0200, a écrit : > > Hallo, > > * Samuel Thibault [Tue, Aug 25 2015, 09:56:39PM]: > > > Eduard Bloch, le Tue 25 Aug 2015 21:35:36 +0200, a écrit : > > > > * Samuel Thibault [Tue, Aug 25 2015, 08:54:35PM]: > > > > > Just so that people reading the log don't take it too exagerated: > > > > > > > > > Eduard Bloch, le Tue 25 Aug 2015 20:24:22 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > > I checked again... about 20% of the time is spent in two calls of > > > > > > pidof > > > > > > > > > > We're here talking about ~15ms each. > > > > > > > > I don't. It's ~270ms each (I added another log with timestamps). > > > > > > How long is the readlink /proc/*/exe | grep? > > > > ~70ms (strace -f -tt -o logfile sh -c 'readlink /proc/*/exe | fgrep slash') > > strace is quite expensive, better use just
Oh, you are right. I didn't expect that impact. Without strace, pidof takes ~22ms on this laptop. OTOH same with sh "readlink...|grep" also needs about ~10ms. So... ok, maybe getting times from the log was a bad idea and causes exageration. > time (readlink /proc/*/exe | fgrep slash) > > But that's already a big improvement, I'm surprised that pidof can be so > expensive. Mea culpa; pidof probably creates lots of work for strace because of the many "IO" operations on /proc. Sorry... Regards, Eduard.
