Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1689086 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-17 16:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-07-17 19:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
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.
Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64 "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-17 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64 Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2017-07-17 19:10 +0200
| From | "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] drivers/char: kmem: disable on arm64 |
| Message-ID | <u4f2p-69R-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote: > > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it > > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides > > strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this > > is the other way around. For instance, for a 48-bit VA configuration, > > we have > > > > modules : 0xffff000000000000 - 0xffff000008000000 ( 128 MB) > > vmalloc : 0xffff000008000000 - 0xffff7dffbfff0000 (129022 GB) > > ... > > vmemmap : 0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff800000000000 ( 2048 GB maximum) > > 0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff7e0003ff0000 ( 63 MB actual) > > memory : 0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff8000ffc00000 ( 4092 MB) > > > > This has mostly gone unnoticed until now, but it does appear that it > > breaks an assumption in the kcore > > s/kcore/kmem/ v4? :)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u4hGX-7SW-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1689086 |
On 17 July 2017 at 15:18, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote: >> > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it >> > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides >> > strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this >> > is the other way around. For instance, for a 48-bit VA configuration, >> > we have >> > >> > modules : 0xffff000000000000 - 0xffff000008000000 ( 128 MB) >> > vmalloc : 0xffff000008000000 - 0xffff7dffbfff0000 (129022 GB) >> > ... >> > vmemmap : 0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff800000000000 ( 2048 GB maximum) >> > 0xffff7e0000000000 - 0xffff7e0003ff0000 ( 63 MB actual) >> > memory : 0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff8000ffc00000 ( 4092 MB) >> > >> > This has mostly gone unnoticed until now, but it does appear that it >> > breaks an assumption in the kcore >> >> s/kcore/kmem/ > > v4? :) > This is already in mainline as 06c35ef1fdf8d955684448683f7e48ac5f15ccfd
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web