[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808071603330.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Fix broken VMI in 2.6.27-rc..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Just moving it down by 4 MB doesn't help, since the VMI guys want as much as
> 64 MB, which is half the standard vmalloc area and hence too much address
> space lost. We can't put it at the bottom of the vmalloc area, since that
> boundary is not fixed, either.
Yeah, ok. Since this is a 32-bit only issue, 64MB is actually a fair chunk
of our already limited virtual space.
> The one remaining fixed boundary in the machine is the kernel-userspace
> boundary. Hence moving the 1:1 area up by one PDE unit and sticking the
> fixmap area in that region.
Yeah, ok, but I'd be more nervous about the validation issues there. There
might be a lot of code that assumes that TASK_SIZE is the start of the 1:1
area. It does sound like a good approach, it just makes me worry about the
test coverage.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists