On 2019/4/10 22:54, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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.
>
I like arch_status, I proposed but no other arch shows interesting in it.
I think the problem is similar for x86_status, it does not make sense for
those x86 platform without AVX512 to have an empty arch file. I personally
don't like [arch]_status because the code may become unclean if more arches
added in future.
Maybe it's too early to have a separated arch staff file for now.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
