From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755633Ab2JVTjT (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:39:19 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:40103 "EHLO mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752899Ab2JVTjS (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:39:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:39:14 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [rfc 0/2] Introducing VmFlags field into smaps output Message-ID: <20121022193914.GK2303@moon> References: <20121022191452.785366817@openvz.org> <20121022122934.d2e2fa57.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121022122934.d2e2fa57.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:29:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:14:52 +0400 > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > Hi guys, during c/r sessions we've found that there is no way at > > the moment to fetch some VMA associated flags, such as mlock() > > and madvise(), thus the patches in this series intorduce new field > > into "smaps" output called VmFlags where all flags associated with > > the particular VMA is shown in two letter mnemonic. > > > > Strictly speaking for c/r we only need mlock/madvise bits but it > > has been said that providing just a few flags looks somehow inconsistent. > > So all flags are here now. > > > > Please review. Comments and complains are quite welcome! > > Sigh, it's still a pretty nasty-looking interface. Better ideas are > welcomed. Well, one usable thing could be (I guess) to print only flags set. Since usually not that many flags are set on vma. This would shrink output at least. > I joined the patches into one, massaged the changelog a bit and added a > couple more paragraphs explaining why we're doing this to ourselves. Thanks!