lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 22 May 2014 03:05:35 +0000
From:	"Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>
CC:	Andrew Morton <>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <>,
	Andrea Righi <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Hendrik Brueckner <>,
	Thorsten Diehl <>
Subject: RE: /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:linux-kernel-
>] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:32 AM
> To: Heiko Carstens
> Cc: Andrew Morton; KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki; Andrea Righi; Eric Dumazet; linux-
>;; Hendrik Brueckner;
> Thorsten Diehl
> Subject: Re: /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
> > regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
> > or something similar).
> Probably because no one sent a patch for it. I'm pretty sure it used the
> even more horrible old proc ops before and was converted in batch with
> various other files. worried about performance and led to 
the current code; the reply in 
discussed using seq_file, but that idea was rejected at the time.

Be careful about losing consistency of the information for the CPUs.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists