Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1593363 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and  PR_GET_MAX_VADDR "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> - 2017-03-06 15:20 +0100

#1593363 — Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

2017-02-21 15:42 GMT+03:00 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> 2017-02-17 19:50 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>:
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
>> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual
>> >> address available to userspace to map.
>> ...
>> > Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches?
>>
>> So, how can I help that?
>> Is there the patch's version, on which I could rebase?
>> Here are BTW the last patches, which I will resend with trivial ifdef-fixup
>> after the merge window:
>> http://marc.info/?i=20170214183621.2537-1-dsafonov%20()%20virtuozzo%20!%20com
>
> Could you check if this patch collides with anything you do:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170220131515.GA9502@node.shutemov.name

Ok, sorry for the late reply - it was the merge window anyway and I've got
urgent work to do.

Let's see:

I'll need minor merge fixup here:
>-#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(TASK_SIZE / 3))
>+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW / 3))
while in my patches:
>+#define __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(task_size)        (PAGE_ALIGN(task_size / 3))
>+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE             __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(TASK_SIZE)

This should be just fine with my changes:
>- info.high_limit = end;
>+ info.high_limit = min(end, DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW);

This will need another minor fixup:
>-#define MAX_GAP (TASK_SIZE/6*5)
>+#define MAX_GAP (DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW/6*5)
I've moved it from macro to mmap_base() as local var,
which depends on task_size parameter.

That's all, as far as I can see at this moment.
Does not seems hard to fix. So I suggest sending patches sets
in parallel, the second accepted will rebase the set.
Is it convenient for you?
If you have/will have some questions about my patches, I'll be
open to answer.

-- 
             Dmitry

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1593399 — Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:00:28PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> 2017-02-21 15:42 GMT+03:00 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> 2017-02-17 19:50 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> >> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual
> >> >> address available to userspace to map.
> >> ...
> >> > Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches?
> >>
> >> So, how can I help that?
> >> Is there the patch's version, on which I could rebase?
> >> Here are BTW the last patches, which I will resend with trivial ifdef-fixup
> >> after the merge window:
> >> http://marc.info/?i=20170214183621.2537-1-dsafonov%20()%20virtuozzo%20!%20com
> >
> > Could you check if this patch collides with anything you do:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170220131515.GA9502@node.shutemov.name
> 
> Ok, sorry for the late reply - it was the merge window anyway and I've got
> urgent work to do.
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> I'll need minor merge fixup here:
> >-#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(TASK_SIZE / 3))
> >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW / 3))
> while in my patches:
> >+#define __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(task_size)        (PAGE_ALIGN(task_size / 3))
> >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE             __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(TASK_SIZE)
> 
> This should be just fine with my changes:
> >- info.high_limit = end;
> >+ info.high_limit = min(end, DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW);
> 
> This will need another minor fixup:
> >-#define MAX_GAP (TASK_SIZE/6*5)
> >+#define MAX_GAP (DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW/6*5)
> I've moved it from macro to mmap_base() as local var,
> which depends on task_size parameter.
> 
> That's all, as far as I can see at this moment.
> Does not seems hard to fix. So I suggest sending patches sets
> in parallel, the second accepted will rebase the set.
> Is it convenient for you?

Works for me.

In fact, I've just sent v4 of the patchset.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web