Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

/proc/pid/arch_status Is Coming To Show Architecture-Specific Details Of A Given Task

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • /proc/pid/arch_status Is Coming To Show Architecture-Specific Details Of A Given Task

    Phoronix: /proc/pid/arch_status Is Coming To Show Architecture-Specific Details Of A Given Task

    To be exposed via /proc/[pid]/arch_status is a new interface for exposing architectural-specific information for a given Linux process...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ID-Arch-Status

  • #2
    Meanwhile neither top, nor ps can show process architecture (32/64bit) - a feature which has been available in taskmgr.exe since Windows XP 64.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by birdie View Post
      Meanwhile neither top, nor ps can show process architecture (32/64bit) - a feature which has been available in taskmgr.exe since Windows XP 64.
      Probably because none cares even on Windows?

      Showing the usage of AVX512 instruaction matters, as that's a very heat-intensive instruction.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Probably because none cares even on Windows?

        Showing the usage of AVX512 instruaction matters, as that's a very heat-intensive instruction.
        You may not care but others do. It would be interesting to see if a process is 32 bit or 64 bit. The kernel has the information so makes sense to make it available. Sometimes people just want to know out of curiosity

        Comment


        • #5
          Will AMD/Intel introduce desktop and server CPUs with big.LITTLE cores, where the many (at least 16) little cores will lack AVX, AVX2 and AVX-512?

          The kernel will then automatically be moving tasks utilizing AVX instructions to the big cores.

          The little cores might have a higher operating frequency than the big cores (contrary to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_bi...mplementations).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
            You may not care but others do.
            All those that can add it or pay to have it added don't care.
            I've never seen any argument that supports the need to see the bitness of a process, even on Windows (especially on Windows where it's pretty easy to spot a 32bit application as they go in "Program Files x86").

            That's enough to claim none cares in my book.

            Random end users don't matter. They never matter. Opensource isn't different.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              Meanwhile neither top, nor ps can show process architecture (32/64bit) - a feature which has been available in taskmgr.exe since Windows XP 64.
              How about:
              file -L /proc/$PID/exe

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                All those that can add it or pay to have it added don't care.
                I've never seen any argument that supports the need to see the bitness of a process, even on Windows (especially on Windows where it's pretty easy to spot a 32bit application as they go in "Program Files x86").

                That's enough to claim none cares in my book.

                Random end users don't matter. They never matter. Opensource isn't different.
                Weird bubble you live in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Meanwhile neither top, nor ps can show process architecture (32/64bit) - a feature which has been available in taskmgr.exe since Windows XP 64.
                  Don't even mention that crap.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    Random end users don't matter. They never matter. Opensource isn't different.
                    You should read the book "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X