Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752723AbaBYNe4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:34:56 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:61379 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752329AbaBYNez convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:34:55 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,540,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="487747603" From: "Ren, Qiaowei" To: "H. Peter Anvin" , "Hansen, Dave" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar CC: "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables Thread-Topic: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables Thread-Index: AQHPMF7sO2qtZ+ouhUGFbjVRemsqiZrEJJwAgAAGpYCAAdBW0A== Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:34:24 +0000 Message-ID: <9E0BE1322F2F2246BD820DA9FC397ADE0151FC9E@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1393162071-23995-1-git-send-email-qiaowei.ren@intel.com> <1393162071-23995-3-git-send-email-qiaowei.ren@intel.com> <530B8112.5080400@intel.com> <530B86A5.6060100@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <530B86A5.6060100@zytor.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@zytor.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:52 AM > To: Hansen, Dave; Ren, Qiaowei; Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar > Cc: x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate > bound tables > > On 02/24/2014 09:27 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > Can you talk a little bit about what the design is here? Why does the > > kernel have to do the allocation of the virtual address space? Does > > it really need to MAP_POPULATE? bt_size looks like 4MB, and that's an > > awful lot of memory to eat up at once. Shouldn't we just let the > > kernel demand-fault this like everything else? > > > > MAP_POPULATE definitely seems like the wrong thing. > Oh. This option should be removed. Thanks, Qiaowei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/