From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fmr04.intel.com ([143.183.121.6]:20420 "EHLO caduceus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261423AbUCAUU2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:20:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:16:13 -0800 From: Arun Sharma Subject: Re: SHMLBA and compat tasks Message-ID: <20040301201613.GA13349@intel.com> References: <20040228014128.GA6897@intel.com> <20040228155529.64bc0741.davem@redhat.com> <20040229021105.GA6964@intel.com> <20040229215752.3a6f0ce7.davem@redhat.com> <20040301193308.GA13305@intel.com> <16451.37325.109790.457348@napali.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16451.37325.109790.457348@napali.hpl.hp.com> To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 11:41:01AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > > I assume you're asking me here (too many David's!). Virtual name cache aliasing ? :) > The answer is that it's NOT OK to force 1MB alignment for IA-32 tasks. > It'll eat up address space like there is no tomorrow. In fact, the > reason the code is there is because some versions of the open-office > installer used to crash due to address-space exhaustion. Probably a > bug in open-office, but the point is that for ia32-emulation purposes, > we want/need to be bug-for-bug compatible with x86. Sounds like we have sufficient grounds for using different alignment rules for different architectures ? -Arun