[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJwJo6YUA0i8AsQ+sKJZcJSsUGwGFuNxOWB71_n4KJ2dDyKbCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:00:28 +0300
From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR
2017-02-21 15:42 GMT+03:00 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> 2017-02-17 19:50 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>:
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
>> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual
>> >> address available to userspace to map.
>> ...
>> > Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches?
>>
>> So, how can I help that?
>> Is there the patch's version, on which I could rebase?
>> Here are BTW the last patches, which I will resend with trivial ifdef-fixup
>> after the merge window:
>> http://marc.info/?i=20170214183621.2537-1-dsafonov%20()%20virtuozzo%20!%20com
>
> Could you check if this patch collides with anything you do:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170220131515.GA9502@node.shutemov.name
Ok, sorry for the late reply - it was the merge window anyway and I've got
urgent work to do.
Let's see:
I'll need minor merge fixup here:
>-#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(TASK_SIZE / 3))
>+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW / 3))
while in my patches:
>+#define __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(task_size) (PAGE_ALIGN(task_size / 3))
>+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(TASK_SIZE)
This should be just fine with my changes:
>- info.high_limit = end;
>+ info.high_limit = min(end, DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW);
This will need another minor fixup:
>-#define MAX_GAP (TASK_SIZE/6*5)
>+#define MAX_GAP (DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW/6*5)
I've moved it from macro to mmap_base() as local var,
which depends on task_size parameter.
That's all, as far as I can see at this moment.
Does not seems hard to fix. So I suggest sending patches sets
in parallel, the second accepted will rebase the set.
Is it convenient for you?
If you have/will have some questions about my patches, I'll be
open to answer.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists