From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:58:43 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE & stack location Message-ID: <20030425235843.GU8978@holomorphy.com> References: <459930000.1051302738@[10.10.2.4]> <3EA9CA25.E140A02C@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA9CA25.E140A02C@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: badari Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel , linux-mm mailing list , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:52:05PM -0700, badari wrote: > Only problem with moving TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE right above > text would be - limiting the malloc() space. malloc() is clever enough > to mmap() and do the right thing. Once I moved TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE > to 0x10000000 and I could not run some of the programs with large > data segments. > Moving stacks below text would be tricky. pthread library knows > the placement of stack. It uses this to distinguish between > threads and pthreads manager. > I don't know what other librarys/apps depend on this kind of stuff. STACK_TOP is easy to change to see what goes wrong; it's a single #define in include/asm-i386/a.out.h Someone should spin it up and see how well pthreads copes. -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org