[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253578781.7103.186.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:41 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
Cc: Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Test Project <Ltp-list@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [LTP] mmapstress03 weirdness? (fwd)
On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 15:40 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> With 32-bit userland, this boils down to:
>
> | mmap addr 0x7fff0000 size 0x7fff0000
> | mmap returned 0x7fff0000
>
> i.e. mmap() succeeds, but (1) the test expects it to fail, so the test returns
> TFAIL, but (2) ltp-pan still reports that the tests passed?
What is the output of /proc/<pid>/maps after that mmap ?
With a 64-bit kernel, 32-bit userspace has access to the entire 4G
address space, so mapping 2G-64k at the 2G-64k point can work, provided
you aren't overlapping an existing mapping such as the stack.
> In addition, sometimes mmapstress03 fails due to SEGV. I created a small test
> program that just does the above mmap(), and depending on the distro and what
> else I print later it crashes with a SEGV, too. Probably this happens because
> the mmap() did succeed, and corrupted some existing mappings, cfr. the notes
> for MAP_FIXED:
That's possible.
> MAP_FIXED
> Don’t interpret addr as a hint: place the mapping at exactly
> that address. addr must be a multiple of the page size. If the
> memory region specified by addr and len overlaps pages of any
> existing mapping(s), then the overlapped part of the existing
> mapping(s) will be discarded. If the specified address cannot
> be used, mmap() will fail. Because requiring a fixed address
> for a mapping is less portable, the use of this option is dis‐
> couraged.
Yeah, I suppose the test might be wiping out its own stack for example
IE. I think that test is just bogus :-)
> JFYI, with 64-bit userland, this boils down to:
>
> | mmap addr 0x7fffffffffff0000 size 0x7fffffffffff0000
> | mmap returned 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> i.e. mmap() fails as expected, and the test succeeds.
Right because on 64-bit userspace, you only are allowed something like
16T of address space.
> Does all of this sound OK?
> Thanks for your comments!
Yes, I think so far, it's just bogus tests :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
> With kind regards,
>
> Geert Uytterhoeven
> Software Architect
> Techsoft Centre
>
> Technology and Software Centre Europe
> The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
>
> Phone: +32 (0)2 700 8453
> Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
> E-mail: Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com
> Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
>
> A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
> VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
> Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
--
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