Hey Oleg!
Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep it in mind, but currently it looks
like the patch is on ice for non-implementation related reasons.
Rob.
@@ -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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
