From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A37CA9EAE for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2A021872 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:51:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571806305; bh=3zYRXJ+SRu8zwNp7IKIn6lBjU9+RRMxgTC+0RDpFeyw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=ZKofUrsE0Yiyt1tKrml3Hz7aLd08noM0JSVvrZRZVuTfxoFerP53eWgkWskgx+xC8 qvKiRTqikfM8z3xvWmjRAW079ZL/lUnJxCtj38roAY98B8EJMqFwquBTjRopNfF4yL ve4chhwJDJ8drKnO7MrDU6dMlYxzZdWat97E5ghg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731220AbfJWEvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:51:45 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59434 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731061AbfJWEvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:51:45 -0400 Received: from devnote2 (NE2965lan1.rev.em-net.ne.jp [210.141.244.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EE9A2173B; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:51:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571806304; bh=3zYRXJ+SRu8zwNp7IKIn6lBjU9+RRMxgTC+0RDpFeyw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BV0cPNPy2Q/sISCUnkyYc4xqyMqagc5n9bVOGmRs4FCgplAi8B5jNG2GAgs2Wwnci EXNIbgRP65rKiXXIhRYlPkrQygRh8bZAQuRgCo3Cp3ujANxBJWoA7pRqJpD39VXj6t hS+69V/yugQ0tsr7FBN1hvtbcazoJGDI2i0wQY1U= Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:51:41 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , Shuah Khan , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaswinder.singh@linaro.org Subject: Re: [BUGFIX PATCH v2 1/5] selftests: proc: Make va_max 1GB on 32bit arch Message-Id: <20191023135141.77aef5dc41182e069676d27e@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20191023105618.48a8fcee869fbae8ead31cee@kernel.org> References: <157164647813.17692.3834082082658965225.stgit@devnote2> <157164648909.17692.6080553792829040898.stgit@devnote2> <20191021173053.GB5355@avx2> <20191023105618.48a8fcee869fbae8ead31cee@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:56:18 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:30:53 +0300 > Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:28:09PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Currently proc-self-map-files-002.c sets va_max (max test address > > > of user virtual address) to 4GB, but it is too big for 32bit > > > arch and 1UL << 32 is overflow on 32bit long. > > > > > > Make va_max 1GB on 32bit arch like i386 and arm. > > > > > +#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 32 > > > +# define VA_MAX (1UL << 30) > > > +#elif __BITS_PER_LONG == 64 > > > +# define VA_MAX (1UL << 32) > > > +#else > > > +# define VA_MAX 0 > > > +#endif > > > + > > > int main(void) > > > { > > > const int PAGE_SIZE = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); > > > - const unsigned long va_max = 1UL << 32; > > > + const unsigned long va_max = VA_MAX; > > > > No, just make it like 1MB unconditionally. > > Ah, I sse. BTW, would you mean 1GB? I understand that 1MB will be good enough, since vm.mmap_min_addr is 64KB by default (except for arm/arm64 which is 32KB). OK, I'll update and resend. Thank you, > > > This is not intended to cover all address space, just large enough part > > (larger than reasonable vm.mmap_min_addr) > > Then, should we better to check the /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr? > > Thank you, > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu -- Masami Hiramatsu