Subject: Re: curproc in procfs
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Gordon W. Ross <email@example.com>
Date: 03/05/1999 01:01:51
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Maybe it would make sense to add curprocX, leaving curproc as-is. curproc
> referes to the process making the open() call, while curprocX refers to
> the curproc on cpu X.
Jason Thorpe replies:
> I don't really think this is a great idea.
I agree. Here's why:
The assignment of CPUs to any particular thread or process is
going to be very dynamic (at least eventually:) so any such
information you might expose at user-level is guaranteed to be
out-of-date by the time it even gets to user-level. Better no
information than misinformation.