[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0dcd47a-b155-8523-0d7d-a25dd3cc665c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:33:33 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
aubrey.li@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] /proc/pid/status: Add support for architecture
specific output
On 2019/4/8 9:52, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:38 PM Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/4/8 1:34, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could
>>>>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture
>>>>> specific information externally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
>>>>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> This really lacks
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>>>
>>>> Cc'ed now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I certainly understand why you want to expose this info, but would it
>>> make more sense to instead add an arch_status file in /proc with
>>> architecture-specific info? Or maybe an x86_status field for x86
>>> status, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I tried this, but no other architecture showed interest in arch_status
>> under /proc.
>>
>
> Why is that a problem? It could exist on x86 and not exist on other
> arches until needed.
>
I placed it in tid_base_stuff, under live_patch entry, so it exists for
all arches, is there a better way to do this?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists