RE: Help with writing a new "fuser"

["Greg Nate" <Greg_Nate@adp.com>]

Yes, I have tried lsof (its one of my favorites) and lsof is actually slower.  Its even slower than "fuser -v", which does the same thing as "lsof".

After suggestions and hints from others, my idea was premature.  I understand that I'd have to set a lock on task struct, which in itself, might be more time consuming.  Apparently, 2.4.x doesn't have a task list structure, rather it has a struct with pointers to the beginning and end.

Even though my original idea is stalled, I am still very much open to ideas.

Thanks, 

greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ravi [mailto:kravi26@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:25 AM
To: Greg Nate; kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org
Subject: Re: Help with writing a new "fuser"



--- Greg Nate <Greg_Nate@adp.com> wrote:
> Hello all, I hope this is the proper group. Here's where I need
> direction.
> 
> I want to write a new "fuser", which makes direct kernel table calls,
> rather
> than what the current "fuser" does, which seems to be a
> file-tree-walk on
> /proc. We've found that on a heavily loaded system, the current
> "fuser" is
> far too slow and can actually have a serious performance impact.

 Before you go ahead with this, have you tried using
'lsof'? I have found that many times 'lsof' is faster
than fuser. Of course, I haven't looked into the source
of either of them, so I don't know how different they
really are.

-Ravi.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ:           http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/