On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:10:09 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It looks like a churn that doesn't really address the problem. > If we were to allow long names then make it into a pointer and use 16 byte > as an optimized storage for short names. Any longer name would be a pointer. > In other words make it similar to dentry->d_iname. That would be quite a bigger undertaking too, as it is assumed throughout the kernel that the task->comm is TASK_COMM_LEN and is nul terminated. And most locations that save the comm simply use a fixed size string of TASK_COMM_LEN. Not saying its not feasible, but it would require a lot more analysis of the impact by changing such a fundamental part of task struct from a static to something requiring allocation. Unless you are suggesting that we truncate like normal the 16 byte names (to a max of 15 characters), and add a way to hold the entire name for those locations that understand it. -- Steve
