From: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/16 v8] Add API to get memory mapping Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:46:31 +0800
> At 03/09/2012 08:40 AM, HATAYAMA Daisuke Wrote: >> From: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/16 v8] Add API to get memory mapping >> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:52:29 +0800 >> >>> At 03/07/2012 11:27 PM, HATAYAMA Daisuke Wrote: >>>> From: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 05/16 v8] Add API to get memory mapping >>>> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:18:23 +0800 >>>> >>>> >>>> How does the memory portion referenced by PT_LOAD program headers with >>>> p_vaddr == 0 looks through gdb? If we cannot access such portions, >>>> part not referenced by the page table CR3 has is unnecessary, isn't >>>> it? >>> >>> The part is unnecessary if you use gdb. But it is necessary if you use >>> crash. >>> >> >> crash users would not use paging option because even if without using >> it, we can see all memory well, so the paging option is only for gdb >> users. > > Yes, the paging option is only for gdb users. The default value if off. > >> >> It looks to me that the latter part only complicates the logic. If >> instead, collecting virtual addresses only, way of handling PT_LOAD >> entries become simpler, for example, they no longer need to be >> physically contiguous in a single entry, and reviewing and maintaince >> becomes easy. > > Sorry, I donot understand what do you want to say. > The processing that adds part not referenced by page table to vmcore is meaningless for gdb. crash doesn't require it. So, it only complicates the current logic. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke
