>> On sparc64, MAX_PHYS_ADDRESS_BITS is currently defined as 53 meaning that >> a lot of JITs crash on a sparc64 userspace [1]. > > Correction, it shouldn't be MAX_PHYS_ADDRESS_BITS but sparc64_va_hole_top as > defined in mm/init_64.c.
That sounds like a good compromise, considering that hardware making use of such a huge address space is currently not widely available. Is there anything in the SPARC spec that mandates 52 virtual address bits? Why was this value chosen in the first place?
