[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170324090408.xsj7othssj547w5k@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:04:08 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86/mm: allow to have userspace mappings above
47-bits
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:40:20AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> @@ -168,6 +182,10 @@ arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(struct file *filp, const unsigned long addr0,
> > unsigned long addr = addr0;
> > struct vm_unmapped_area_info info;
> >
> > + addr = mpx_unmapped_area_check(addr, len, flags);
> > + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(addr))
> > + return addr;
> > +
> > /* requested length too big for entire address space */
> > if (len > TASK_SIZE)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -192,6 +210,14 @@ arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(struct file *filp, const unsigned long addr0,
> > info.length = len;
> > info.low_limit = PAGE_SIZE;
> > info.high_limit = mm->mmap_base;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If hint address is above DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW, look for unmapped area
> > + * in the full address space.
> > + */
> > + if (addr > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW)
> > + info.high_limit += TASK_SIZE - DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW;
> > +
>
> Is this ok for 32 bit application ?
DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW is equal to TASK_SIZE on 32-bit, so it's nop and will
be compile out.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists