[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160907125806.GA3849@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:58:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: robert.foss@...labora.com
Cc: corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, koct9i@...il.com,
n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
john.stultz@...aro.org, minchan@...nel.org,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, jmarchan@...hat.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, keescook@...omium.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
mguzik@...hat.com, jdanis@...gle.com, calvinowens@...com,
adobriyan@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, sonnyrao@...omium.org,
seth.forshee@...onical.com, tixxdz@...il.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
Bryan Freed <bfreed@...omium.org>,
Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mm, proc: Implement /proc/<pid>/totmaps
On 09/05, robert.foss@...labora.com wrote:
>
> @@ -2854,6 +2854,7 @@ static const struct pid_entry tgid_base_stuff[] = {
> REG("clear_refs", S_IWUSR, proc_clear_refs_operations),
> REG("smaps", S_IRUGO, proc_pid_smaps_operations),
> REG("pagemap", S_IRUSR, proc_pagemap_operations),
> + REG("totmaps", S_IRUGO, proc_totmaps_operations),
I must have missed something, but I fail to understand why this patch
is so complicated.
Just use ONE("totmaps", S_IRUGO, proc_totmaps_operations) ?
> +static int totmaps_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> +{
> + struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> + struct mm_struct *mm = priv->mm;
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> + struct mem_size_stats mss_sum;
> +
> + memset(&mss_sum, 0, sizeof(mss_sum));
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + hold_task_mempolicy(priv);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
why?
> + for (vma = mm->mmap; vma != priv->tail_vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
Hmm. the usage of ->tail_vma looks just wrong. I guess the code should
work because it is NULL but still.
> + struct mem_size_stats mss;
> + struct mm_walk smaps_walk = {
> + .pmd_entry = smaps_pte_range,
> + .mm = vma->vm_mm,
> + .private = &mss,
> + };
> +
> + if (vma->vm_mm && !is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) {
> + memset(&mss, 0, sizeof(mss));
> + walk_page_vma(vma, &smaps_walk);
> + add_smaps_sum(&mss, &mss_sum);
> + }
> + }
Why? I mean, why not walk_page_range() ? You do not need this for-each-vma
loop at all? At least if you change this patch to use the ONE() helper, and
everything else looks unneeded in this case.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists