[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220511064943.GR76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 08:49:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:40AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Hi all. Here's long overdue update on LAM enabling.
>
> # Description #
>
> Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to
> 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated
> address bits for metadata.
>
> The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses.
>
> The most sensitive part of enabling is change in tlb.c, where CR3 flags
> get set. Please take a look that what I'm doing makes sense.
>
> The feature competes for bits with 5-level paging: LAM_U48 makes it
> impossible to map anything about 47-bits. The patchset made these
> capability mutually exclusive: whatever used first wins. LAM_U57 can be
> combined with mappings above 47-bits.
So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on
it are of limited sustainability?
Any such program simply *cannot* run on 5 level pagetables. Why do we
want to do this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists