Re: [PATCH] Mark thread stack correctly in proc/<pid>/maps

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> i don't suppose we could have it say "[tid stack]" rather than "[stack]" ?  or
> perhaps even "[stack tid:%u]" with replacing %u with the tid ?

Why do we need to differentiate a thread stack from a process stack?
If someone really wants to know, the main stack is the last one since
it doesn't look like mmap allocates anything above the stack right
now.

I like the idea of marking all stack vmas with their task ids but it
will most likely break procps. Besides, I think it could be done
within procps with this change rather than having the kernel do it.

-- 
Siddhesh Poyarekar
http://siddhesh.in

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]