Re: proc_misc.c bug

[Randy.Dunlap]

> On 10 Apr 2003 22:44:17 +0100 Alan Cox <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> | On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 23:02, David Mosberger wrote:
> | > The workaround below is to allocate 4KB per 8 CPUs.  Not really a | >
> solution, but the fundamental problem is that /proc/interrupts | > shouldn't
> use a fixed buffer size in the first place.  I suppose | > another solution
> would be to use vmalloc() instead.  It all feels like | > bandaids though.
> |
> | How about switching to Al's seqfile interface ?
>
> It's already using it, but it uses the simple/single version of it, which
> doesn't automagically extend the output buffer area when
> it's full, so a max size buffer has to be allocated for it
> up front.
>
> I'll look at changing it unless somebody beats me (to it :).

OK, I've looked at it and concluded that it's not bad the way it is
(after David's patch is applied).  However, that really depends on
whether the static NR_CPUS is well-tuned or not.
If it's not tuned, then modifying the output to use the iterative
seq_file methods would make sense.
But if it's not tuned, someone is (usually) wasting lots of memory anyway.

[adding this:]
Or a better approximation instead of NR_CPUS might be to add and use
something a bit more intelligent about how many interrupts are
in use.  However, this makes my later argument not so strong.

The reason that I say it's not bad the way it is is that
it does one kmalloc() for the output buffer and then it can run
quickly and do its job [but it's limited to the original kmalloc
buffer size].   If it's modified to use seq_file iteration,
it will start out with kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE) in seq_read(), and when
that fills up, a buffer twice that size is kmalloc-ed, repeat....
with earlier buffers being freed first.

Does someone want to disagree now?  go a() instead.  It all feels like | >
bandaids though.
> |
> | How about switching to Al's seqfile interface ?
>
> It's already using it, but it uses the simple/single version of it, which
> doesn't automagically extend the output buffer area when
> it's full, so a max size buffer has to be allocated for it
> up front.
>
> I'll look at changing it unless somebody beats me (to it :).

OK, I've looked at it and concluded that it's not bad the way it is
(after David's patch is applied).  However, that really depends on
whether the static NR_CPUS is well-tuned or not.
If it's not tuned, then modifying the output to use the iterative
seq_file methods would make sense.
But if it's not tuned, someone is (usually) wasting lots of memory anyway.

[adding this:]
Or a better approximation instead of NR_CPUS might be to add and use
something a bit more intelligent about how many interrupts are
in use.  However, this makes my later argument not so strong.

The reason that I say it's not bad the way it is is that
it does one kmalloc() for the output buffer and then it can run
quickly and do its job [but it's limited to the original kmalloc
buffer size].   If it's modified to use seq_file iteration,
it will start out with kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE) in seq_read(), and when
that fills up, a buffer twice that size is kmalloc-ed, repeat....
with earlier buffers being freed first.

Does someone want to disagree now?  go ahead...i'm listening.
Maybe the reason to modify it is that NR_CPUS is not a good
approximation/hint/clue.

~Randy