[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181006123322.GA60572@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:33:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, thgarnie@...gle.com,
corbet@....net, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/3] x86/mm/doc: Enhance the x86-64 virtual memory layout
descriptions
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> +========================================================
> +| Complete virtual memory map with 4-level page tables |
> +========================================================
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +start addr | offset | end addr | size | VM area description
> +-----------------|------------|------------------|---------|--------------------
> +
> +# Identical layout to the 56-bit one from here on:
> +
> +ffffff8000000000 | -512 GB | fffffffeefffffff | ~507 GB | ... unused hole
> +ffffffef00000000 | -68 GB | fffffffeffffffff | 64 GB | EFI region mapping space
> +========================================================
> +| Complete virtual memory map with 5-level page tables |
> +========================================================
> +ffffff8000000000 | -0.5 TB | ffffffeeffffffff | 444 GB | ... unused hole
> +
> +# Identical layout to the 47-bit one from here on:
> +
> +ffffffef00000000 | -68 GB | fffffffeffffffff | 64 GB | EFI region mapping space
So patch #2 appears to have introduced an error/typo in the 47-bit table. Note the weird size
and discontinuity of the 'unused hole' in the 47-bit table, and compare it with 56-bit table:
fffffffeefffffff
ffffffeeffffffff
(Note how the incorrect end address was cargo-cult-copied into the 'size' field of ~507 GB...)
The correct number is the 56-bit one, and both tables should show the following identical
layout:
ffffff8000000000 | -512 GB | fffffffeefffffff | 444 GB | ... unused hole
ffffffef00000000 | -68 GB | fffffffeffffffff | 64 GB | EFI region mapping space
Agreed?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists