On Thu 05-01-17 14:20:22, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Michal, > > Am 05.01.2017 um 12:49 schrieb Michal Hocko: > >> I thought 0 is the better choice since it will not lead to wrong results > >> when userspace tools compute the sum of values reported by > >> /proc/<pid>/status. > > > > Dunno. If somebody translates 0 to statically linked library then it > > could be wrong. > > Checking VmLib for 0 is not the correct way to detect a statically linked > program.
If you just read the documentation: VmLib size of shared library code then 0 might suggest there are no shared libraries used and the code is statically linked > Unless I misread the code, VmLib will honour any PROT_EXEC mapping. > So, a statically linked JIT will have VmLib > 0. yes the code behaves differently and that's why I've said that the reported number is not correct no matter how. Anyway, as I've said I do not see any solution without risk of regression while the current code is clearly wrong. If the general consensus is that 0 is better than explicitly documenting VmLib as the size of executable code and report it that way then I have no objections and won't stay in the way. I am not sure which poison is worse. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
