On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:40 PM Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2019/4/10 10:36, Li, Aubrey wrote: > > On 2019/4/10 10:25, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:20 PM Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2019/4/10 9:58, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:55 PM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The architecture specific information of the running processes could > >>>>> be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture > >>>>> specific information externally. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/proc/array.c | 5 +++++ > >>>>> include/linux/proc_fs.h | 2 ++ > >>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c > >>>>> index 2edbb657f859..331592a61718 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/proc/array.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c > >>>>> @@ -401,6 +401,10 @@ static inline void task_thp_status(struct seq_file *m, struct mm_struct *mm) > >>>>> seq_printf(m, "THP_enabled:\t%d\n", thp_enabled); > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> +void __weak arch_proc_pid_status(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *task) > >>>>> +{ > >>>>> +} > >>>> > >>>> This pointlessly bloats other architectures. Do this instead in an > >>>> appropriate header: > >>>> > >>>> #ifndef arch_proc_pid_status > >>>> static inline void arch_proc_pid_status(...) > >>>> { > >>>> } > >>>> #endif > >>>> > >>> > >>> I saw a bunch of similar weak functions, is it not acceptable? > >>> > >>> fs/proc$ grep weak *.c > >>> cpuinfo.c:__weak void arch_freq_prepare_all(void) > >>> meminfo.c:void __attribute__((weak)) arch_report_meminfo(struct seq_file *m) > >>> vmcore.c:int __weak elfcorehdr_alloc(unsigned long long *addr, unsigned long long *size) > >>> vmcore.c:void __weak elfcorehdr_free(unsigned long long addr) > >>> vmcore.c:ssize_t __weak elfcorehdr_read(char *buf, size_t count, u64 *ppos) > >>> vmcore.c:ssize_t __weak elfcorehdr_read_notes(char *buf, size_t count, u64 *ppos) > >>> vmcore.c:int __weak remap_oldmem_pfn_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >>> vmcore.c:ssize_t __weak > >> > >> I think they're acceptable, but I don't personally like them. > >> > > > > okay, let me try to see if I can refine it in an appropriate way. > > Hi Andy, > > Is this what you want? > > Thanks, > -Aubrey > > ==================================================================== > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > index 2bb3a648fc12..82d77d3aefff 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > @@ -990,5 +990,8 @@ enum l1tf_mitigations { > }; > > extern enum l1tf_mitigations l1tf_mitigation; > +/* Add support for architecture specific output in /proc/pid/status */ > +void arch_proc_pid_status(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *task); > +#define arch_proc_pid_status arch_proc_pid_status > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_PROCESSOR_H */ > diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c > index 2edbb657f859..fd65a6ba2864 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/array.c > +++ b/fs/proc/array.c > @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ static inline void task_thp_status(struct seq_file *m, struct mm_struct *mm) > seq_printf(m, "THP_enabled:\t%d\n", thp_enabled); > } > > +/* Add support for architecture specific output in /proc/pid/status */ > +#ifndef arch_proc_pid_status > +#define arch_proc_pid_status(m, task) > +#endif > + > int proc_pid_status(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns, > struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task) > { > @@ -424,6 +429,7 @@ int proc_pid_status(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns, > task_cpus_allowed(m, task); > cpuset_task_status_allowed(m, task); > task_context_switch_counts(m, task); > + arch_proc_pid_status(m, task); > return 0; > } > Yes. But I still think it would be nicer to separate the arch stuff into its own file. Others might reasonably disagree with me.