From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:52:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:52:11 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:30409 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:52:08 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: John Levon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: size in /proc/modules In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:27:03 -0000." <20030120142703.GA58326@compsoc.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:44:21 +1100 Message-Id: <20030121070114.A6A3D2C282@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20030120142703.GA58326@compsoc.man.ac.uk> you write: > > /proc/modules size field includes init_size in 2.5. Why ? > > The removal of sensible values in /proc/ksyms means that oprofile can no > longer attribute module samples reliably. The only information we have > is module_core address, and size == core_size+init_size. Since init code > is removed in sys_init_module, this will overestimate, and can lead to > overlapping with the start of another module, afaics. > > In 2.4, we had size(.text), which could underestimate (think > .text.exit), but that is not a big problem. > > Rusty, does this fall under another one of your "corner cases" ? (what I > would call "flaky code" ...) > > Or I have I just missed something obvious ? Yes, line 1328 of kernel/module.c, by the sound of it 8) I was thinking of you when I added this, actually. Hope that helps! Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.