public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Roger Luethi <rl@hellgate.ch>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:49:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040909184933.GG3106@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040909184300.GA28278@k3.hellgate.ch>

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:35:29 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Any chance you could convert these to use the new vm statistics
>> accounting?

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:43:01PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> Mea culpa. I copied the routines wholesale from 2.6.7 when I started
> work on nproc. They still seemed to work with 2.6.9-rc1-bk13, I hadn't
> noticed the work that had gone into field computation already. So for
> CONFIG_MMU, values in both __task_mem and __task_mem_cheap are cheap
> now. The routines can be merged.
> !CONFIG_MMU is a different story. Presumably, it needs a change in the
> fields that are offered (cp. task_mem in fs/proc/task_nommu.c).
> FWIW, my prefered solution would be to have only one routine task_mem
> to fill the respective struct for nproc and /proc.

I'll follow up shortly with a task_mem()/task_mem_cheap() consolidation
patch atop the others I sent.


On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:43:01PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> There seems to be a discrepancy between current task_mem in
> fs/proc/task_nommu.c and the __task_mem{,_cheap} routines you wrote
> for the nproc !CONFIG_MMU case. Can you explain?

I'm not aware of a discrepancy with the fs/proc/task_nommu.c code; I
did, however, have to mangle the things via guesswork to avoid adding
the new fields, which I really wanted you to arrange for or comment on
as they are a matter of interface. Also, could you be more specific
about these discrepancies?


-- wli

  reply	other threads:[~2004-09-09 18:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-09-08 18:40 [0/1][ANNOUNCE] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-08 18:41 ` [1/1][PATCH] " Roger Luethi
2004-09-09  0:35   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  0:43     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:15       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:17         ` [1/2] rediff nproc v2 vs. 2.6.9-rc1-mm4 William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:21           ` [2/2] handle CONFIG_MMU=n and use new vm stats for CONFIG_MMU=y William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:22             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09  1:26             ` [3/2] round up text memory to the nearest page in fs/proc/task_mmu.c William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 18:43     ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 18:49       ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-09-09 19:00         ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:02           ` [4/2] consolidate __task_mem() and __task_mem_cheap() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:07             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:15               ` [5/2] fix nommu VSZ reporting in consolidated task_mem() William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 19:11         ` [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 19:23           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 21:19             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-10 15:30             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:25           ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  4:58             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  5:59             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  6:18               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  6:23                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:47                   ` Greg Ungerer
2004-09-14  8:27                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 11:53   ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 17:22     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-09 17:53       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:01         ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:48           ` Chris Wright
2004-09-10 12:11             ` Stephen Smalley
2004-09-09 20:55           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 21:05             ` Chris Wright
2004-09-09 21:25             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-11 22:36               ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-12  5:00                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  6:44                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  7:10                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  7:55                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14  8:01                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14  9:27                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 15:37                           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 16:01                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 16:37                               ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 17:15                                 ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 17:43                                   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 18:45                                     ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:07                                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 19:31                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:36                                           ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14 19:50                                             ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 11:44                                         ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:02                                           ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:20                                             ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-15 20:33                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-15 20:44                                               ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 18:37                                 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 18:55                                   ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-14 19:05                                     ` Chris Wright
2004-09-14 21:12                                       ` Roger Luethi
2004-09-09 20:44         ` Chris Wright
2004-09-16 21:43 ` nproc: So? Roger Luethi

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=20040909184933.GG3106@holomorphy.com \
    --to=wli@holomorphy.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=albert@users.sf.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    --cc=rl@hellgate.ch \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox