On 12.06.2012, at 16:57, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-12 07:53, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> 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? :) > > Lol. > > Actually I've tried it a couple of times: -R 32G. 32G is way too much. Do you have to preallocate such a big address space? Usually 1G should be good enough for most programs, no? Alex > And, no, it > doesn't work very well. ;-) > > > r~
