Re: pidof and pgrep are slower than a grep /proc/[1-9]*/comm

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 15:07, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > Notice that the O(1, grep) vs O(N, pidof) is always present but to see > a big difference N >> 1, like 8 or 10 for example. Using 2 for seeing > the difference also works, but the difference can be more easily > confused with some

[RESEND, RFC PATCH] ip link: support for the CAN netlink

I developed this application to test the Linux kernel series [1]. As described in the cover letter I could not use the iproute2 package since the microcontroller is without MMU. cc: Marc Kleine-Budde [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev=167999323611710=2 Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi ---

Re: pidof and pgrep are slower than a grep /proc/[1-9]*/comm

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 11:51, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 11:41, Roberto A. Foglietta > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 17:14, Bastian Bittorf wrote: > > > > > > I tried to replicate your findings, but my slow embedded OpenWRT > > > system (with musl libc) is

Re: pidof and pgrep are slower than a grep /proc/[1-9]*/comm

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 11:41, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 17:14, Bastian Bittorf wrote: > > > > I tried to replicate your findings, but my slow embedded OpenWRT > > system (with musl libc) is so fast, that your tests always produce > > 0 seconds execution time. > >

Re: pidof and pgrep are slower than a grep /proc/[1-9]*/comm

On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 17:14, Bastian Bittorf wrote: > > I tried to replicate your findings, but my slow embedded OpenWRT > system (with musl libc) is so fast, that your tests always produce > 0 seconds execution time. Shows the test shell code and the results. redfishos:/rootfs # time date