On Wed 02-05-18 16:43:58, prakash.sangappa wrote: > > > On 05/02/2018 02:33 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:58:06 -0700 Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > For analysis purpose it is useful to have numa node information > > > corresponding mapped address ranges of the process. Currently > > > /proc/<pid>/numa_maps provides list of numa nodes from where pages are > > > allocated per VMA of the process. This is not useful if an user needs to > > > determine which numa node the mapped pages are allocated from for a > > > particular address range. It would have helped if the numa node information > > > presented in /proc/<pid>/numa_maps was broken down by VA ranges showing the > > > exact numa node from where the pages have been allocated. > > > > > > The format of /proc/<pid>/numa_maps file content is dependent on > > > /proc/<pid>/maps file content as mentioned in the manpage. i.e one line > > > entry for every VMA corresponding to entries in /proc/<pids>/maps file. > > > Therefore changing the output of /proc/<pid>/numa_maps may not be possible. > > > > > > Hence, this patch proposes adding file /proc/<pid>/numa_vamaps which will > > > provide proper break down of VA ranges by numa node id from where the mapped > > > pages are allocated. For Address ranges not having any pages mapped, a '-' > > > is printed instead of numa node id. In addition, this file will include most > > > of the other information currently presented in /proc/<pid>/numa_maps. The > > > additional information included is for convenience. If this is not > > > preferred, the patch could be modified to just provide VA range to numa node > > > information as the rest of the information is already available thru > > > /proc/<pid>/numa_maps file. > > > > > > Since the VA range to numa node information does not include page's PFN, > > > reading this file will not be restricted(i.e requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN). > > > > > > Here is the snippet from the new file content showing the format. > > > > > > 00400000-00401000 N0=1 kernelpagesize_kB=4 mapped=1 file=/tmp/hmap2 > > > 00600000-00601000 N0=1 kernelpagesize_kB=4 anon=1 dirty=1 file=/tmp/hmap2 > > > 00601000-00602000 N0=1 kernelpagesize_kB=4 anon=1 dirty=1 file=/tmp/hmap2 > > > 7f0215600000-7f0215800000 N0=1 kernelpagesize_kB=2048 dirty=1 file=/mnt/f1 > > > 7f0215800000-7f0215c00000 - file=/mnt/f1 > > > 7f0215c00000-7f0215e00000 N0=1 kernelpagesize_kB=2048 dirty=1 file=/mnt/f1 > > > 7f0215e00000-7f0216200000 - file=/mnt/f1 > > > .. > > > 7f0217ecb000-7f0217f20000 N0=85 kernelpagesize_kB=4 mapped=85 mapmax=51 > > > file=/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so > > > 7f0217f20000-7f0217f30000 - file=/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so > > > 7f0217f30000-7f0217f90000 N0=96 kernelpagesize_kB=4 mapped=96 mapmax=51 > > > file=/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so > > > 7f0217f90000-7f0217fb0000 - file=/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so > > > .. > > > > > > The 'pmap' command can be enhanced to include an option to show numa node > > > information which it can read from this new proc file. This will be a > > > follow on proposal. > > I'd like to hear rather more about the use-cases for this new > > interface. Why do people need it, what is the end-user benefit, etc? > > This is mainly for debugging / performance analysis. Oracle Database > team is looking to use this information. But we do have an interface to query (e.g. move_pages) that your application can use. I am really worried that the broken out per node data can be really large (just take a large vma with interleaved policy as an example). So is this really worth adding as a general purpose proc interface? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
