On Friday 24 February 2012 00:47:48 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mike Frysinger 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 it's trivial to display, it'd be nice to coordinate things when investigating issues > 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. you can't rely on that. you're describing arch-specific details that happen to work. > I like the idea of marking all stack vmas with their task ids but it > will most likely break procps. how ? > Besides, I think it could be done within procps with this change rather than > having the kernel do it. how exactly is procps supposed to figure this out ? /proc/<pid>/maps shows the pid's main stack, as does /proc/<pid>/tid/*/maps. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.