[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221018222419.oy2z2wanvwp2pnrm@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:24:19 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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/$PID/arch_status
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:02:43PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/18/22 04:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Add a line in /proc/$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).
In generic /proc/$PID/status?
And I'm not sure if it is a good idea at this stage. Semantics around tags
is not settled across architectures: somewhere it is per-thread, somewhere
per-process, somewhere it is global.
Maybe keep it arch-specific?
> This could even be left out of the series for now, right? Nothing,
> including the selftests, depends on it.
GDB folks wanted to know the mask.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists