linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Copy Offload in NVMe Fabrics with P2P PCI Memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1519945204.4592.45.camel@au1.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:00:04 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Oliver OHalloran <oliveroh@....ibm.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Copy Offload in NVMe Fabrics with P2P PCI
 Memory

On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 14:57 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> On 01/03/18 02:45 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> > It handles it fine for many situations. But when you try to map 
> > something that is at the end of the physical address space then the 
> > spares-vmemmap needs virtual address space that's the size of the 
> > physical address space divided by PAGE_SIZE which may be a little bit 
> > too large...
> 
> Though, considering this more, maybe this shouldn't be a problem...
> 
> Lets say you have 56bits of address space.

We use only 52 in practice but yes.

>  That's 64PB. If you use need 
> a sparse vmemmap for the entire space it will take 16TB which leaves you 
> with 63.98PB of address space left. (Similar calculations for other 
> numbers of address bits.)

We only have 52 bits of virtual space for the kernel with the radix
MMU.

> So I'm not sure what the problem with this is.
> 
> We still have to ensure all the arches map the memory with the right 
> cache bits but that should be relatively easy to solve.
> 
> Logan