[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2375c9f90909162302m1fb89414o4f72b6b36e7cbb06@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:02:39 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][mmotm] showing size of kcore
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> Now, size of /proc/kcore which can be read by 'ls -l' is 0.
> But it's not correct value.
>
> This is a patch for showing size of /proc/kcore as following.
>
> On x86-64, ls -l shows
> ... root root 140737486266368 2009-09-17 10:29 /proc/kcore
> Then, 7FFFFFFE02000. This comes from vmalloc area's size.
> (*) This shows "core" size, not memory size.
>
> This patch shows the size by updating "size" field in struct proc_dir_entry.
> Later, lookup routine will create inode and fill inode->i_size based
> on this value. Then, this has a problem.
>
> - Once inode is cached, inode->i_size will never be updated.
>
> Then, this patch is not memory-hotplug-aware.
>
> To update inode->i_size, we have to know dentry or inode.
> But there is no way to lookup them by inside kernel. Hmmm....
> Next patch will try it.
>
> Cc: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/proc/kcore.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/kcore.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14.orig/fs/proc/kcore.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep14/fs/proc/kcore.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,8 @@ static void free_kclist_ents(struct list
> */
> static void __kcore_update_ram(struct list_head *list)
> {
> + int nphdr;
> + size_t size;
> struct kcore_list *tmp, *pos;
> LIST_HEAD(garbage);
>
> @@ -124,6 +126,7 @@ static void __kcore_update_ram(struct li
> write_unlock(&kclist_lock);
>
> free_kclist_ents(&garbage);
> + proc_root_kcore->size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &size);
This makes me to think if we will have some race condition here?
Two processes can open kcore at the same time...
> }
>
>
> @@ -429,7 +432,8 @@ read_kcore(struct file *file, char __use
> unsigned long start;
>
> read_lock(&kclist_lock);
> - proc_root_kcore->size = size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &elf_buflen);
> + size = get_kcore_size(&nphdr, &elf_buflen);
> +
> if (buflen == 0 || *fpos >= size) {
> read_unlock(&kclist_lock);
> return 0;
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists