From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDA96B0069 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id 19so256300640vko.0 for ; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-x229.google.com (mail-ua0-x229.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b64si116032uab.101.2017.01.05.09.54.15 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:54:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y9so54449246uae.2 for ; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:54:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170104141959.GC17319@node.shutemov.name> References: <20161227015413.187403-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20161227015413.187403-30-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <2736959.3MfCab47fD@wuerfel> <20170103160457.GB17319@node.shutemov.name> <20170104141959.GC17319@node.shutemov.name> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:53:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , X86 ML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Dave Hansen , linux-arch , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux API , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:27:22AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >> > And what about stack? I'm not sure that everybody would be happy with >> > stack in the middle of address space. >> >> I would, personally. I think that, for very large address spaces, we >> should allocate a large block of stack and get rid of the "stack grows >> down forever" legacy idea. Then we would never need to worry about >> the stack eventually hitting some other allocation. And 2^57 bytes is >> hilariously large for a default stack. > > The stack in the middle of address space can prevent creating other huuuge > contiguous mapping. Databases may want this. Fair enough. OTOH, 2^47 is nowhere near the middle if we were to put it near the top of the legacy address space. -- 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: email@kvack.org