From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86/mm: allow to have userspace mappings above 47-bits
In-Reply-To: <20170317175714.3bvpdylaaudf4ig2@node.shutemov.name>
References: <20170313055020.69655-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20170313055020.69655-27-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <87a88jg571.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> <20170317175714.3bvpdylaaudf4ig2@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 13:54:03 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <877f3lfzdo.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1773
Lines: 42

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:23:54PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On x86, 5-level paging enables 56-bit userspace virtual address space.
>> > Not all user space is ready to handle wide addresses. It's known that
>> > at least some JIT compilers use higher bits in pointers to encode their
>> > information. It collides with valid pointers with 5-level paging and
>> > leads to crashes.
>> >
>> > To mitigate this, we are not going to allocate virtual address space
>> > above 47-bit by default.
>> >
>> > But userspace can ask for allocation from full address space by
>> > specifying hint address (with or without MAP_FIXED) above 47-bits.
>> >
>> > If hint address set above 47-bit, but MAP_FIXED is not specified, we try
>> > to look for unmapped area by specified address. If it's already
>> > occupied, we look for unmapped area in *full* address space, rather than
>> > from 47-bit window.
>> >
>> > This approach helps to easily make application's memory allocator aware
>> > about large address space without manually tracking allocated virtual
>> > address space.
>> >
>> 
>> So if I have done a successful mmap which returned > 128TB what should a
>> following mmap(0,...) return ? Should that now search the *full* address
>> space or below 128TB ?
>
> No, I don't think so. And this implementation doesn't do this.
>
> It's safer this way: if an library can't handle high addresses, it's
> better not to switch it automagically to full address space if other part
> of the process requested high address.
>

What is the epectation when the hint addr is below 128TB but addr + len >
128TB ? Should such mmap request fail ?

-aneesh