From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3818F6B000A for ; Mon, 7 May 2018 21:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id d4-v6so20706486wrn.15 for ; Mon, 07 May 2018 18:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com (aserp2130.oracle.com. [141.146.126.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d20-v6si2539574edp.183.2018.05.07.18.14.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 May 2018 18:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: prakash.sangappa@oracle.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add /proc//numa_vamaps for numa node information References: <1525240686-13335-1-git-send-email-prakash.sangappa@oracle.com> <20180502143323.1c723ccb509c3497050a2e0a@linux-foundation.org> <2ce01d91-5fba-b1b7-2956-c8cc1853536d@intel.com> <33f96879-351f-674a-ca23-43f233f4eb1d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <82d2b35c-272a-ad02-692f-2c109aacdfb6@oracle.com> <8569dabb-4930-aa20-6249-72457e2df51e@intel.com> <51145ccb-fc0d-0281-9757-fb8a5112ec24@oracle.com> From: "prakash.sangappa" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 18:16:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Hansen , Anshuman Khandual , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, drepper@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com, Naoya Horiguchi On 05/07/2018 05:05 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 05/07/2018 04:22 PM, prakash.sangappa wrote: >> However, with the proposed new file, we could allow seeking to >> specified virtual address. The lseek offset in this case would >> represent the virtual address of the process. Subsequent read from >> the file would provide VA range to numa node information starting >> from that VA. In case the VA seek'ed to is invalid, it will start >> from the next valid mapped VA of the process. The implementation >> would not be based on seq_file. > So you're proposing a new /proc/ file that appears next to and is > named very similarly to the exiting /proc/, but which has entirely > different behavior? It will be /proc//numa_vamaps. Yes, the behavior will be different with respect to seeking. Output will still be text and the format will be same. I want to get feedback on this approach.