From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f71.google.com (mail-oi0-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5CA8E0001 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 21:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f71.google.com with SMTP id l191-v6so8001059oig.23 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id o40-v6sor2063585otd.341.2018.09.13.18.33.54 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:33:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1525240686-13335-1-git-send-email-prakash.sangappa@oracle.com> <20180502143323.1c723ccb509c3497050a2e0a@linux-foundation.org> <2ce01d91-5fba-b1b7-2956-c8cc1853536d@intel.com> <33f96879-351f-674a-ca23-43f233f4eb1d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <82d2b35c-272a-ad02-692f-2c109aacdfb6@oracle.com> <8569dabb-4930-aa20-6249-72457e2df51e@intel.com> <51145ccb-fc0d-0281-9757-fb8a5112ec24@oracle.com> <94ee0b6c-4663-0705-d4a8-c50342f6b483@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <94ee0b6c-4663-0705-d4a8-c50342f6b483@oracle.com> From: Jann Horn Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:33:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add /proc//numa_vamaps for numa node information Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Prakash Sangappa Cc: Dave Hansen , Anshuman Khandual , Andrew Morton , kernel list , Linux-MM , Linux API , Michal Hocko , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, drepper@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:43 PM prakash.sangappa wrote: > On 05/09/2018 04:31 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 05/07/2018 06:16 PM, prakash.sangappa wrote: > >> It will be /proc//numa_vamaps. Yes, the behavior will be > >> different with respect to seeking. Output will still be text and > >> the format will be same. > >> > >> I want to get feedback on this approach. > > I think it would be really great if you can write down a list of the > > things you actually want to accomplish. Dare I say: you need a > > requirements list. > > > > The numa_vamaps approach continues down the path of an ever-growing list > > of highly-specialized /proc/ files. I don't think that is > > sustainable, even if it has been our trajectory for many years. > > > > Pagemap wasn't exactly a shining example of us getting new ABIs right, > > but it sounds like something along those is what we need. > > Just sent out a V2 patch. This patch simplifies the file content. It > only provides VA range to numa node id information. > > The requirement is basically observability for performance analysis. > > - Need to be able to determine VA range to numa node id information. > Which also gives an idea of which range has memory allocated. > > - The proc file /proc//numa_vamaps is in text so it is easy to > directly view. > > The V2 patch supports seeking to a particular process VA from where > the application could read the VA to numa node id information. > > Also added the 'PTRACE_MODE_READ_REALCREDS' check when opening the > file /proc file as was indicated by Michal Hacko procfs files should use PTRACE_MODE_*_FSCREDS, not PTRACE_MODE_*_REALCREDS.