G'Day Folks, On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 02:43:08PM -0700, Alexander Kolbasov wrote: > > A related question is what is the best way to get configuration information > > as opposed to performance information. For the kernel, most of the > > performance data is separated out cleanly in kstats, but applications > > still have constructs in /proc such as prusage, which contains the > > cpu usage (derived from the days of BSD), over and above > > /proc/pid/status and the like. > > > > Is it legitimate to says /CPUfs is to be primarily or entirely > > configuration? > > There is no particular reason why CPufs should be limited to configuration > information - it seems to be a perfectly valid place for some of the > performance characteristics as well.
Except that it would duplicate CPU performance stats from kstat. As an end-user of performance stats, I'd rather see kstat enhanced with meaningful and stable information, rather than new interfaces created. Unless it could be shown that doing this in kstat is really dumb. Exactly how ugly would it be to represent this information in kstat? You could argue that controller/disk/partition is a similar hierarchy with shared resources (eg, partitions share the on-disk cache and bandwidth), yet that works just fine from kstat, and could be extended to work even better (eg, on-disk cache size would appear in class:disk, assuming that value is readable; partitions could have a statistic to identify which disk they belonged to, if it wasn't already obvious from the name). cheers, Brendan -- Brendan [CA, USA] _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
