[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f5bb3006-e0df-d27c-d9d4-a5500c305fab@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:15:27 +0300
From: Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.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
On 03/06/2017 05:17 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:00:28PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Works for me.
>
> In fact, I've just sent v4 of the patchset.
>
Ok, thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists