Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:31:07 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@c-s.fr> writes:
>>
>> > The number of high slices a process might use now depends on its
>> > address space size, and what allocation address it has requested.
>> >
>> > This patch uses that limit throughout call chains where possible,
>> > rather than use the fixed SLICE_NUM_HIGH for bitmap operations.
>> > This saves some cost for processes that don't use very large address
>> > spaces.
>>
>> I haven't really looked at the final code. One of the issue we had was
>> with the below scenario.
>>
>> mmap(addr, len) where addr < 128TB and addr+len > 128TB We want to make
>> sure we build the mask such that we don't find the addr available.
>
> We should run it through the mmap regression tests. I *think* we moved
> all of that logic from the slice code to get_ummapped_area before going
> in to slices. I may have missed something though, it would be good to
> have more eyes on it.
>
mmap(-1,...) failed with the test. Something like below fix it
@@ -756,7 +770,7 @@ void slice_set_user_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned
int psize)
mm->context.low_slices_psize = lpsizes;
hpsizes = mm->context.high_slices_psize;
- high_slices = GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(mm->context.slb_addr_limit);
+ high_slices = SLICE_NUM_HIGH;
for (i = 0; i < high_slices; i++) {
mask_index = i & 0x1;
index = i >> 1;
I guess for everything in the mm_context_t, we should compute it till
SLICE_NUM_HIGH. The reason for failure was, even though we recompute the
slice mask cached in mm_context on slb_addr_limit, it was still derived
from the high_slices_psizes which was computed with lower value.
-aneesh
