[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <595acefb-18fc-e650-e172-bae271263c4c@deltatee.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 16:19:59 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: benh@....ibm.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 01/03/18 04:00 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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.
Ok, assuming you only have 52 bits of physical address space: the sparse
vmemmap takes 1TB and you're left with 3.9PB of address space for other
things. So, again, why doesn't that work? Is my math wrong?
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists