Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] mm: Add personality flag to limit address to 47 bits

Liam R. Howlett
2024-09-10T19:10:27Z

* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> [240906 07:44]:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:55:42AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024, at 09:14, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 3:18 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >> It's also unclear to me how we want this flag to interact with
> > >> the existing logic in arch_get_mmap_end(), which attempts to
> > >> limit the default mapping to a 47-bit address space already.
> > >
> > > To optimize RISC-V progress, I recommend:
> > >
> > > Step 1: Approve the patch.
> > > Step 2: Update Go and OpenJDK's RISC-V backend to utilize it.
> > > Step 3: Wait approximately several iterations for Go & OpenJDK
> > > Step 4: Remove the 47-bit constraint in arch_get_mmap_end()
> >
> > I really want to first see a plausible explanation about why
> > RISC-V can't just implement this using a 47-bit DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW
> > like all the other major architectures (x86, arm64, powerpc64),
>
> FWIW arm64 actually limits DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW to 48-bit in the default
> configuration. We end up with a 47-bit with 16K pages but for a
> different reason that has to do with LPA2 support (I doubt we need this
> for the user mapping but we need to untangle some of the macros there;
> that's for a separate discussion).
>
> That said, we haven't encountered any user space problems with a 48-bit
> DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW. So I also think RISC-V should follow a similar
> approach (47 or 48 bit default limit). Better to have some ABI
> consistency between architectures. One can still ask for addresses above
> this default limit via mmap().

I think that is best as well.

Can we please just do what x86 and arm64 does?

Thanks,
Liam