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

[Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>]

On 03/06/2017 05:17 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 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.
>

Ok, thanks.

-- 
              Dmitry

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>