On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:44:06AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > It makes tons of sense. > > Just like we have a task's cmd-name it makes a lot of sense to name > objects in a human readable fashion, to help debugging, instrumentation, > performance analysis, etc. > > Yes, in theory user-space could do all that. That's not the point: the > point is to make it fast, easy enough and to have a central version (the > kernel). > > Doing it via temporary files has various disadvantages: We need those files anyway.. The current proposal is that the entire VMA has a single userspace pointer in it. Or rather a 64bit value. > I guess the real question is not whether it's useful, I think it clearly > is. The question should be: are there real downsides? Does the addition to > the anon mmap field blow up the size of vma_struct by a pointer, or is > there still space? I don't see how the single u64 is useful at all for perf; you can have at most one u64 per page; that's not nearly enough to put symbol information in. Therefore we still require external files. -- 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>