From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx156.postini.com [74.125.245.156]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EDE36B004A for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by qadz32 with SMTP id z32so117317qad.14 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:47:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201202231847.55733.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20120222150010.c784b29b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1329969811-3997-1-git-send-email-siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> <201202231847.55733.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:17:48 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc//maps From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jamie Lokier On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i don't suppose we could have it say "[tid stack]" rather than "[stack]" = ? =A0or > perhaps even "[stack tid:%u]" with replacing %u with the tid ? Why do we need to differentiate a thread stack from a process stack? If someone really wants to know, the main stack is the last one since it doesn't look like mmap allocates anything above the stack right now. I like the idea of marking all stack vmas with their task ids but it will most likely break procps. Besides, I think it could be done within procps with this change rather than having the kernel do it. --=20 Siddhesh Poyarekar http://siddhesh.in -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org