[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE0151FC9E@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:34:24 +0000
From: "Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate
bound tables
> -----Original Message-----
> From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@...or.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:52 AM
> To: Hansen, Dave; Ren, Qiaowei; Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar
> Cc: x86@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate
> bound tables
>
> On 02/24/2014 09:27 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > Can you talk a little bit about what the design is here? Why does the
> > kernel have to do the allocation of the virtual address space? Does
> > it really need to MAP_POPULATE? bt_size looks like 4MB, and that's an
> > awful lot of memory to eat up at once. Shouldn't we just let the
> > kernel demand-fault this like everything else?
> >
>
> MAP_POPULATE definitely seems like the wrong thing.
>
Oh. This option should be removed.
Thanks,
Qiaowei
--
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