[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cd8939c7-6194-53f5-14e1-89bef945fb47@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:02:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 09/15] x86: Expose untagging mask in
/proc/$PID/arch_status
On 10/18/22 04:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Add a line in /proc/$PID/arch_status to report untag_mask. It can be
> used to find out LAM status of the process from the outside. It is
> useful for debuggers.
Considering that address masking is not x86-specific, it seems like this
needs a better home (another file in /proc).
This could even be left out of the series for now, right? Nothing,
including the selftests, depends on it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists