[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aaca3180-7510-c008-3e12-8bbe92344ef4@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:31:22 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: prakash.sangappa@...cle.com,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
drepper@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add /proc/<pid>/numa_vamaps for numa node information
On 05/07/2018 06:16 PM, prakash.sangappa wrote:
> It will be /proc/<pid>/numa_vamaps. Yes, the behavior will be
> different with respect to seeking. Output will still be text and
> the format will be same.
>
> I want to get feedback on this approach.
I think it would be really great if you can write down a list of the
things you actually want to accomplish. Dare I say: you need a
requirements list.
The numa_vamaps approach continues down the path of an ever-growing list
of highly-specialized /proc/<pid> files. I don't think that is
sustainable, even if it has been our trajectory for many years.
Pagemap wasn't exactly a shining example of us getting new ABIs right,
but it sounds like something along those is what we need.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists