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: <1519946767.4592.49.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:26:07 +1100
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
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 16:19 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:

(Switching back to my non-IBM address ...)

> 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

The big problem is not the vmemmap, it's the linear mapping.

Cheers,
Ben.