Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:00:28PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> 2017-02-21 15:42 GMT+03:00 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> 2017-02-17 19:50 GMT+03:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> >> > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual
> >> >> address available to userspace to map.
> >> ...
> >> > Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches?
> >>
> >> So, how can I help that?
> >> Is there the patch's version, on which I could rebase?
> >> Here are BTW the last patches, which I will resend with trivial ifdef-fixup
> >> after the merge window:
> >> http://marc.info/?i=20170214183621.2537-1-dsafonov%20()%20virtuozzo%20!%20com
> >
> > Could you check if this patch collides with anything you do:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170220131515.GA9502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Ok, sorry for the late reply - it was the merge window anyway and I've got
> urgent work to do.
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> I'll need minor merge fixup here:
> >-#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(TASK_SIZE / 3))
> >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE (PAGE_ALIGN(DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW / 3))
> while in my patches:
> >+#define __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(task_size)        (PAGE_ALIGN(task_size / 3))
> >+#define TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE             __TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE(TASK_SIZE)
> 
> This should be just fine with my changes:
> >- info.high_limit = end;
> >+ info.high_limit = min(end, DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW);
> 
> This will need another minor fixup:
> >-#define MAX_GAP (TASK_SIZE/6*5)
> >+#define MAX_GAP (DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW/6*5)
> I've moved it from macro to mmap_base() as local var,
> which depends on task_size parameter.
> 
> That's all, as far as I can see at this moment.
> Does not seems hard to fix. So I suggest sending patches sets
> in parallel, the second accepted will rebase the set.
> Is it convenient for you?

Works for me.

In fact, I've just sent v4 of the patchset.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov