Re: [PATCH] processes with shared vm

[Robert Love]

On 17 Aug 2001 10:21:35 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The basic idea is a good one (I have written a similar thing in the past ;)
> Your implementation is O(n^2) however in ps, which is not acceptable.
> <snip>

Is there any reason your patch was not accepted?  Perhaps for 2.5?

This is something (along with userspace changes to take advtantage of
it) that I think is really needed -- no more bogus ps/top reports.

I liked Terje's idea, but obviously the scalability needs to be improved
(I didn't even notice it, sadly).  I would really want to see this at
some point.

-- 
Robert M. Love
rml at ufl.edu
rml at tech9.net