[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZuSdZ2bi1JvLJVYe@ghost>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:15:35 -0700
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, guoren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Chris Torek <chris.torek@...il.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-csky@...r.kernel.org" <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-abi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] mm: Add personality flag to limit address to
47 bits
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 11:08:23AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 02:15:59PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:53:49AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:18:12PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > > Opting-in to the higher address space is reasonable. However, it is not
> > > > my preference, because the purpose of this flag is to ensure that
> > > > allocations do not exceed 47-bits, so it is a clearer ABI to have the
> > > > applications that want this guarantee to be the ones setting the flag,
> > > > rather than the applications that want the higher bits setting the flag.
> > >
> > > Yes, this would be ideal. Unfortunately those applications don't know
> > > they need to set a flag in order to work.
> >
> > It's not a regression, the applications never worked (on platforms that
> > do not have this default). The 47-bit default would allow applications
> > that didn't work to start working at the cost of a non-ideal ABI. That
> > doesn't seem like a reasonable tradeoff to me. If applications want to
> > run on new hardware that has different requirements, shouldn't they be
> > required to update rather than expect the kernel will solve their
> > problems for them?
>
> That's a valid point but it depends on the application and how much you
> want to spend updating user-space. OpenJDK is fine, if you need a JIT
> you'll have to add support for that architecture anyway. But others are
> arch-agnostic, you just recompile to your target. It's not an ABI
> problem, more of an API one.
The arch-agnosticism is my hope with this personality flag, it can be
added arch-agnostic userspace code and allow the application to work
everywhere, but it does have the downside of requiring that change to
user-space code.
>
> The x86 case (and powerpc/arm64) was different, the 47-bit worked for a
> long time before expanding it. So it made a lot of sense to keep the
> same default.
Yes it is very reasonable that this solution was selected for those
architectures since the support for higher address spaces evolved in the
manner that it did!
- Charlie
>
> Anyway, the prctl() can go both ways, either expanding or limiting the
> default address space. So I'd be fine with such interface.
>
> --
> Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists