On 12.06.2012, at 16:27, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-12 07:12, Andreas Färber wrote: >> This looks fishy to me... why should the kernel use a bigger address >> space than hardware? For arm on x86_64 such a workaround was not >> necessary iirc. > > I can tell you what I observe. That with a certain sequence of > allocations the x86_64 kernel will quit accepting an address "near" > (1<<38) as a hint for where to allocate memory and begin returning > an addresses near (1<<48). Hrm, does -R work for you? :) Alex
