[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <489B8163.3070300@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:12:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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..
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Indeed. Unfortunately I don't see any other options.
-hpa
--
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