Re: [PATCH v3.1] proc.5: Add description of CLEAR_REFS_MM_HIWATER_RSS

Namhyung Kim
2016-09-16T12:57:11Z

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
<mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 11:27 AM, Petr Cermak wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:19:06AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> The Linux kernel commit 695f05593693 ("fs/proc/task_mmu.c: add
>>> user-space support for resetting mm->hiwater_rss (peak RSS)") added a
>>> way to reset peak RSS of a process but missed to update manpage.
>>>
>>> Cc: Petr Cermak <petrcermak-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
>>> Acked-by: Petr Cermak <petrcermak-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>> man5/proc.5 | 7 ++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/man5/proc.5 b/man5/proc.5
>>> index 14588fe..5f0abad 100644
>>> --- a/man5/proc.5
>>> +++ b/man5/proc.5
>>> @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ process during the measured interval.
>>> If one is interested only in inspecting the selected mapping types,
>>> then the value 2 or 3 can be used instead of 1.
>>>
>>> -A further value can be written to affect a different bit:
>>> +Further values can be written to affect different properties:
>>> .RS
>>> .TP
>>> 4 (since Linux 3.11)
>>> @@ -352,6 +352,11 @@ by the check-point restore system to discover which pages of a process
>>> have been dirtied since the file
>>> .IR /proc/[pid]/clear_refs
>>> was written to.
>>> +.TP
>>> +5 (since Linux 4.0)
>>> +.\" Internally: CLEAR_REFS_MM_HIWATER_RSS
>>> +Reset the peak resident set size ("high water mark") to the process'
>>> +current value.
>>> .RE
>>> .IP
>>> Writing any value to
>>> --
>>> 2.9.3
>>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the modifications.
>>
>> One more thing I've just realized: I believe that the correct spelling
>> is "process's" because it's a singular noun.
>
> Yes, that's correct. I've fixed this.

I'm not a native English speaker so I likely to be wrong. But IIRC I
learned it when I was in the school, it should omit the last 's' when
the word already ends with 's'. Anyway I'm ok with the change and
thanks for correcting the expression.

Thanks,
Namhyung