From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3w45rW27fBzDq7c for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:32:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v3E5Sbam126347 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:32:03 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 29tp4auwf8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:32:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:32:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/powerpc/mm/slice: Cleanup leftover use of task_size To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <1492067567-24688-1-git-send-email-ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lgr4p0ff.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> From: Rick Lindsley Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:31:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lgr4p0ff.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Message-Id: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 04/13/2017 12:33 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > I missed this part earlier. I guess that should be fixed in radix code. > This came in via fbfef9027c2a7ad9277755509fdb849dbccfe8c1 (powerpc/mm: > Switch some TASK_SIZE checks to use mm_context addr_limit). That patch > needs update. When we switched from mm->task_size to > mm->context.addr_limit in latest version of the patch, we missed > updating the above correctly. I have now send a version which should > update this correctly. Ok - so the intent then is that you may extend your address space, but you still may not allocate anything larger than task_size (which will never be larger than 128TB)? The section we are talking about is checking the length of the request against task_size, so that means we may not allocate a single vm area larger than 128TB even though it would be okay to (say) allocate 3 of those within 512TB of address space? Rick