On 05/01/2024 23:18, John Hubbard wrote: > On 1/5/24 00:35, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> right aligned with 0 or ' ' as the pad? I guess ' ' if you want it to look like >> ps? But given pid is the first column, I think it will look weird right aligned. >> Perhaps left aligned, followed by colon, followed by pad? Here are the 3 options: > > I will leave all of the alignment to your judgment and good taste. I'm sure > it will be fine. > > (I'm not trying to make the output look like ps(1). I'm trying to make the pid > look like it "often" looks, and I used ps(1) as an example.) > >> >> 00000206: 0000aaaadbb20000-0000aaaadbb21000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 00426969 I'm going to go with this version ^ >> 206: 0000aaaadbb20000-0000aaaadbb21000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 00426969 > > Sure. > >> 206: 0000aaaadbb20000-0000aaaadbb21000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 00426969 >> >> My personal preference is the first option; right aligned with 0 pad. >> >>> >>> b) In fact, perhaps a header row would help. There could be a --no-header-row >>> option for cases that want to feed this to other scripts, but the default >>> would be to include a human-friendly header. >> >> How about this for a header (with example first data row): >> >> PID START END PROT OFF MJ:MN INODE FILE > > I need to go look up with the MJ:MN means, and then see if there is a > less mysterious column name. Its the device major/minor number. I could just call it DEV (DEVICE is too long) > >> 00000206: 0000aaaadbb20000-0000aaaadbb21000 r-xp 00000000 fe:00 00426969 >> >> Personally I wouldn't bother with a --no-header option; just keep it always on. >> >>> >>> c) pid should probably be suppressed if --pid is specified, but that's >>> less important than the other points. >> >> If we have the header then I think its clear what it is and I'd prefer to keep >> the data format consistent between --pid and --cgroup. So prefer to leave pid in >> always. >> > > That sounds reasonable to me. > >>> >>> In a day or two I'll get a chance to run this on something that allocates >>> lots of mTHPs, and give a closer look. >> >> Thanks - it would be great to get some feedback on the usefulness of the actual >> counters! :) > > Working on it! > >> >> I'm considering adding an --ignore-folio-boundaries option, which would modify >> the way the cont counters work, to only look for contiguity and alignment and >> ignore any folio boundaries. At the moment, if you have multiple contiguous >> folios, they don't count, because the memory doesn't all belong to the same >> folio. I think this could be useful in some (limited) circumstances. >> > > This sounds both potentially useful, and yet obscure, so I'd suggest waiting > until you see a usecase. And then include the usecase (even if just a comment), > so that it explains both how to use it, and why it's useful. > > thanks,
