Michal, Am 05.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Michal Hocko: > 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
Which is IMHO not correct. So, the documentation needs a fix too. >> 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. > Agreed. :-) Thanks, //richard
