On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:02:39 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> b764375 ("procfs: mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps")
> added [stack:TID] annotation to /proc/<pid>/maps. Finding the task of
> a stack VMA requires walking the entire thread list, turning this into
> quadratic behavior: a thousand threads means a thousand stacks, so the
> rendering of /proc/<pid>/maps needs to look at a million threads. The
> cost is not in proportion to the usefulness as described in the patch.
>
> Drop the [stack:TID] annotation to make /proc/<pid>/maps (and
> /proc/<pid>/numa_maps) usable again for higher thread counts.
>
> The [stack] annotation inside /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/maps is retained,
> as identifying the stack VMA there is an O(1) operation.
Four years ago, ouch.
Any thoughts on the obvious back-compatibility concerns? ie, why did
Siddhesh implement this in the first place? My bad for not ensuring
that the changelog told us this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/14/25 has more info:
: Memory mmaped by glibc for a thread stack currently shows up as a
: simple anonymous map, which makes it difficult to differentiate between
: memory usage of the thread on stack and other dynamic allocation.
: Since glibc already uses MAP_STACK to request this mapping, the
: attached patch uses this flag to add additional VM_STACK_FLAGS to the
: resulting vma so that the mapping is treated as a stack and not any
: regular anonymous mapping. Also, one may use vm_flags to decide if a
: vma is a stack.
But even that doesn't really tell us what the actual *value* of the
patch is to end-users.
I note that this patch is a partial revert - the smaps and numa_maps
parts of b764375 remain in place. What's up with that?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>