All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce proc_inode->pid_entry
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:11:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mwbemy2j.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87d2caod0g.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (Eric W. Biederman's message of "Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:03:11 -0700")

ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Obviously not for inclusion. The patches are horrible, break task_nommu.c,
>> untested, etc. Only to explain what I mean and discuss the intent, at least.
>> On top of recent /proc/pid/*maps* cleanups I sent.
>>
>> To me it looks a bit annoying that task_mmu.c needs 6 seq_operations's and
>> 6 file_operations's to handle /proc/pid/*maps*. And _only_ because ->show()
>> differs.
>>
>> Eric, et al, what do you think? At least something like 1-3 looks like a
>> good cleanup imho. And afaics we can do more cleanups on top.
>
>
> I see where you are getting annoyed.
>
> Taking a quick look at task_mmu.c  It looks like the tgid vs pid logic
> to decided which stack or stacks to display is simply incorrect.
>
> tgid vs pid is all about do we perform the per thread group rollups or
> not.  Because we have /proc/<tid>/ directories that need the rollups
> but are per thread.
>
> At a practical level moving pid_entry into the proc inode is ugly
> especially for the hack that is is_tgid_pid_entry.
>
> That test could be implemented more easily by looking at the parent
> directories inode operations and seeing if they are
> proc_root_inode_operations.
>
> Similarly you can get the names out of the dentry, although comparing
> on the dentry name feels like a real hack.
>
> Given where you are starting I think tack_mmu.c code that decides
> when/which stack deserves a serious audit.

On a slightly larger scale it is probably about time to step back
and look at /proc and see what structural cleanups can be done.

Since last time I was looking deeply a bunch of work has been done in
the automount area, and it would be ever so nice if /proc/<pid>/net
because an automount.

Similarly /proc/sys/ really needs to become at least a symlink into
/proc/<pid>/sys and quite possibly an automount itself.

And arguably it would be nice to split /proc/<pid> from /proc generic,
so we would actually have a pure proc.

Shrug. At least if those are ideas worth thinking about and some of them
have the potential to cleanup some nasty interactions with the vfs.

Eric


  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-08 22:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-08 18:57 [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce proc_inode->pid_entry Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] proc: intoduce proc_inode->pid_entry and is_tgid_pid_entry() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 20:05   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-08-09 14:28     ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-10  7:16       ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] proc: unify proc_tgid_stat() and proc_tid_stat() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] proc: kill *_tid_*maps* stuff Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] proc: introduce pid_entry_name() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 18:58 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] proc: unify proc_pid_*maps* stuff Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-08 22:03 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce proc_inode->pid_entry Eric W. Biederman
2014-08-08 22:11   ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2014-08-10 19:23   ` Oleg Nesterov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87mwbemy2j.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org \
    --to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.