Is it possible to make nodes dynamically that are immutable from userland
(even by root), but modifyable from the kernel?
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Yes. See for example linux emulator or my SPY module:
http://www.freebsd.org/~abial/spy
You can also create
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Dan Seguin wrote:
Is it possible to make nodes dynamically that are immutable from userland
(even by root), but modifyable from the kernel?
Yes, of course. Just mark them as read-only (CTLFLAG_RD). You are free to
assign any value to them within the kernel. If it's more
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
I was thinking about implementing SMP cpu stats using sysctl today and
I have a question - can I create sysctl nodes dynamically ?
i.e.
for (cpu = 0; cpu get_num_cpus(); cpu++) {
/* create sysctl
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
I was thinking about implementing SMP cpu stats using sysctl today and
I have a question - can I create sysctl nodes dynamically ?
i.e.
for (cpu = 0; cpu
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 05:44:31PM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
Erhm.. No.
Look closer at the SPY module. I create the whole branch from the root
level. In the standard system there is no such thing as "kld" node,
neither there is a "spy" node. I
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
I'm interested in doing something like:
kern.stats.cpu0.idle
kern.stats.cpu0.nice
...
kern.stats.cpu1.idle
kern.stats.cpu1.nice
...
and I want the nodes cpu0, cpu1 etc dynamically created.
It would be better
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
I'm interested in doing something like:
kern.stats.cpu0.idle
kern.stats.cpu0.nice
...
kern.stats.cpu1.idle
kern.stats.cpu1.nice
...
and I want the nodes cpu0, cpu1 etc dynamically created.
It would be better
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
[ For some reason, this post through muc.lists.freebsd.hackers gateway didn't
show up on the mailing list. Forwarding it to the mailing list.. ]
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 20:38:50 -0800, Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see any examples in
Well, this is welcome news- Bonwick's kstat from solaris was and is an
excellent tool. I look forward to using your version.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
A user program makes a system call with this string "cpu.system" to get
the current value of user/system/nice time etc.
How is this different from doing:
# sysctl -a | grep load
vm.loadavg: { 0.15 0.09
I wrote kstat as a way to improve on the current BSD method of getting
kernel statistics, which involves looking up a particular kernel symbol
name and then getting the value from the symbol offset. This makes any
performance monitoring tool or an application that gets kernel stats
I wrote kstat as a way to improve on the current BSD method of getting
kernel statistics, which involves looking up a particular kernel symbol
name and then getting the value from the symbol offset. This makes any
performance monitoring tool or an application that gets kernel stats
non-portable
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
A user program makes a system call with this string "cpu.system" to get
the current value of user/system/nice time etc.
How is this different from doing:
# sysctl -a | grep load
vm.loadavg: { 0.15 0.09 0.04 }
Ideally we could have a syscall that could
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 09:31:02PM -0600, Chris Costello wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
Can a loadable module, say a network driver register variables with
sysctl ? Can sysctl itself be made a loadable module ? As for the speed,
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Except for
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Except for dynamic registration right?
No, Peter fixed that
Mike Smith wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Except for dynamic registration
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
A user program makes a system call with this string "cpu.system" to get
the current value of user/system/nice time etc.
How is this different from doing:
#
FWIW -- I think a reasonable goal of "getting stats out of the kernel" is
that pulling data out ought to run as fast as bcopy, and it would be nice
if you didn't have to drop into a syscall. Kind of an extreme position, I
guess, but if you have ever seen the rstatd on linux eat 12% of cpu to
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 02:53:51AM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
A user program makes a system call with this string "cpu.system" to get
the current value of user/system/nice time etc.
How is this different from doing:
# sysctl -a | grep load
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
I just looked at the sysctl implementation and there are some differences.
Moreover, since it was not being used in tools like vmstat and xosview,
I thought there must be a reason.
sysctl also seems to assume that it doesn't get called frequently. So
Original Message Follows
From: Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can add "counters" with sysctl. You can also add read/write
variables of any type.
You can add them dynamically at runtime? How do you know which counters are
available at a given time?
One thing that puzzles me; you say
Such an interface, for generic userland statistical gathering, need not be
[and thus should not be] implemented via a kernel-land system call.
bloat, bloat, bloat.
Chuck
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Ricardo Bernardini wrote:
Original Message Follows
From: Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 12:52:50PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
I just looked at the sysctl implementation and there are some differences.
Moreover, since it was not being used in tools like vmstat and xosview,
I thought there must be a reason.
Original Message Follows
From: Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can add "counters" with sysctl. You can also add read/write
variables of any type.
You can add them dynamically at runtime? How do you know which counters are
available at a given time?
The same way you do it
--vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 12:52:50PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Arun Sharma wrote:
I just looked at the sysctl implementation and there are some differences.
Moreover, since it was not being used in
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 06:30:01PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Can a loadable module, say a network driver
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 06:30:01PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Can a loadable module, say a network
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Sysctl is faster than kstat once you have performed the name-oid
lookup. There is basically nothing that kstat can do that sysctl can't
do better and faster, apart from lookup-by-name.
Except for dynamic registration right?
--
| Matthew N. Dodd |
29 matches
Mail list logo
