[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201202241112.46337.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:12:43 -0500
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh.poyarekar@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps
On Friday 24 February 2012 00:47:48 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i don't suppose we could have it say "[tid stack]" rather than "[stack]"
> > ? or perhaps even "[stack tid:%u]" with replacing %u with the tid ?
>
> Why do we need to differentiate a thread stack from a process stack?
if it's trivial to display, it'd be nice to coordinate things when
investigating issues
> If someone really wants to know, the main stack is the last one since
> it doesn't look like mmap allocates anything above the stack right
> now.
you can't rely on that. you're describing arch-specific details that happen to
work.
> I like the idea of marking all stack vmas with their task ids but it
> will most likely break procps.
how ?
> Besides, I think it could be done within procps with this change rather than
> having the kernel do it.
how exactly is procps supposed to figure this out ? /proc/<pid>/maps shows the
pid's main stack, as does /proc/<pid>/tid/*/maps.
-mike
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists