Hi Sukyoung! please don't top-post
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:22:05 +0000 Matthew Chae <matthew.c...@axis.com> wrote: > Hi Bernhard, > > I'm sending new patch and the result of bloatcheck. > For me, this size is reduced to 135 bytes. What do you think? Well, 135b is better than the initial 360b :) > Can you take a look at these attachments? I'd love to. But it doesn't apply, unfortunately: $ git am -s 0004-Allocate-PID-PPID-space-dynamically-in-top-command.patch Applying: Allocate PID/PPID space dynamically in top command error: patch failed: procps/top.c:637 error: procps/top.c: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0001 Allocate PID/PPID space dynamically in top command hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue". If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead. To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort". $ git am --abort $ patch -p1 -i 0004-Allocate-PID-PPID-space-dynamically-in-top-command.patch patching file procps/top.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 637. Hunk #2 FAILED at 696. Hunk #3 FAILED at 709. 3 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file procps/top.c.rej So I'd have to manually fiddle the patch to apply, which i honestly don't have time for ATM, as much as i love code-golf in general. Furthermore (and i'm about to update https://busybox.net/developer accordingly), for legal reasons, we require a Signed-off-by, as detailed in https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html?highlight=sign%20off#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin so please check you legal department (which should be fine for axis) and mark your contributions accordingly by 'git commit -s ...' iff this is in line with your legal situation (again, axis legal will most likely understand what this is about without much further ado, AFAIK). > > PS: > The function of count_digits() is implemented inside of > display_process_list(). > To reduce the size, strlen() is not used. Did you look if manually outlining count_digits() like you did in the previous version is beneficial? And, did you check my previous question if it is better to use the manual buf "painting", perusing in this case pid_len (for the compile-time constant 6 as it is now) and ppid_len (ditto), and, for your other patch on top, username_len (for the current compile-time constant 8)? The loop to determine the max {,p}pid len is not for free of course, so it's okish if that manifests size-wise. PS: 135b is better than the initial suggestion of ~300b, but given architectures tend to end up with very different codegen per arch and compilers used, i'm always curious which arch and which compiler (version) was used to obtain the alleged results. Guess you target chris with gcc-12-ish? Stating the target arch usually allows us a rough estimate about overall impact on other arches. Many thanks in advance and cheers, Bernhard > > Br-Matthew > > ________________________________ > From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 9:46 PM > To: Matthew Chae <matthew.c...@axis.com> > Cc: rep.dot....@gmail.com <rep.dot....@gmail.com>; David Laight > <david.lai...@aculab.com>; 'Denys Vlasenko' <vda.li...@googlemail.com>; > busybox@busybox.net <busybox@busybox.net>; Christopher Wong > <christopher.w...@axis.com> > Subject: Re: fix large PID overflow their column in top command > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:05:15 +0000 > Matthew Chae <matthew.c...@axis.com> wrote: > > > Hi Bernhard, > > > > I'm sending new patch and the result of bloatcheck. > > Many thanks for the updated patch! > > function old new delta > display_process_list 1406 1765 +359 > .rodata 99721 99724 +3 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/0 up/down: 362/0) Total: 362 bytes > text data bss dec hex filename > 1009548 16507 1840 1027895 faf37 busybox_old > 1009910 16507 1840 1028257 fb0a1 busybox_unstripped > > I think that's too much. For me this gives +293 bytes, still way too much. > Can you please see if it helps to retain the manual formatting of > PID PPID USER? > > PS: > > procps/top.c: In function ‘display_process_list’: > procps/top.c:664:1: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code > [-Wdeclaration-after-statement] > 664 | typedef struct { unsigned quot, rem; } bb_div_t; > | ^~~~~~~ > > so please move your new #define PID_STR block down to right before > /* what info of the processes is shown */ > > In > + int lines = (lines_rem - 1); > please drop the superfluous braces. > > It is most likely not smaller to use > pid_len = strlen(make_human_readable_str(pid_max,0,0)) > than to introduce this private count_digits(), i fear? > Maybe we could amortize the addition of count_digits by > reusing it elsewhere, as a follow-up. > > thanks > > > Can you review these and give me your thoughts? > > Just let me know if you think that the code size needs to be reduced. > > > > Br-Matthew > > ________________________________ > > From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7:16 PM > > To: Matthew Chae <matthew.c...@axis.com> > > Cc: rep.dot....@gmail.com <rep.dot....@gmail.com>; David Laight > > <david.lai...@aculab.com>; 'Denys Vlasenko' <vda.li...@googlemail.com>; > > busybox@busybox.net <busybox@busybox.net>; Christopher Wong > > <christopher.w...@axis.com> > > Subject: Re: fix large PID overflow their column in top command > > > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:56:20 +0000 > > Matthew Chae <matthew.c...@axis.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > I'm sending an improved patch based on your comments. > > > > > > Not only does it not care about the PID_MAX value, > > > it searches all the contents to be output to recognize the required > > > column width > > > and dynamically allocates the space for PID and PPID appropriately > > > without creating a lot of empty space. > > > > > > Additionally, this patch still allows user names to be displayed up to 8 > > > characters without truncation. > > > > > > Can you look through the attachment? > > > > Unfortunately the patch does not apply to current master. > > How much would your patch add to the size? Can you bring it down to a > > minimum? > > See make baseline; apply the patch;make bloatcheck > > > > thanks > > > > > (0002-Allocate-PID-PPID-space-dynamically-in-top-command.patch) > > > > > > BR-Matthew Chae > > > ________________________________ > > > From: David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 6:10 PM > > > To: 'Denys Vlasenko' <vda.li...@googlemail.com>; Matthew Chae > > > <matthew.c...@axis.com> > > > Cc: busybox@busybox.net <busybox@busybox.net>; Christopher Wong > > > <christopher.w...@axis.com> > > > Subject: RE: fix large PID overflow their column in top command > > > > > > ... > > > > + fp = xfopen_for_read("/proc/sys/kernel/pid_max"); > > > > + if (!fgets(pid_buf, PID_DIGITS_MAX + 1, fp)) { > > > > ... > > > > + if (strncmp(pid_buf, "32768", 5) == 0) > > > > + pid_digits_num = 5; > > > > + else > > > > + pid_digits_num = PID_DIGITS_MAX; > > > > > > > > The logic above is not sound. Even if sysctl kernel.pid_max > > > > is 32768, there can be already running processes with pids > 99999. > > > > > > It's also probably wrong for pretty much all other values. > > > > > > I'd just base the column width on strlen(pid_buf) with a minimum > > > value of 5. > > > > > > It is unlikely that pid_max has been reduced - so column overflow > > > it that case probably doesn't really matter. > > > > > > The more interesting case is really a system with a very large pid_max > > > that has never run many processes. > > > You don't really want lots of blank space. > > > > > > I can't remember whether top reads everything before doing any output? > > > Since the output is sorted it probably almost always does. > > > In which case it knows the column width it will need. > > > > > > I did post a patch a while back that enabled 'Irix mode'. > > > (100% cpu is one cpu at 100%, not all cpus at 100%) > > > Maybe I should dig it out again. > > > > > > David > > > > > > - > > > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 > > > 1PT, UK > > > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) > > > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
