Re: ioremap vs remap_pfn_range, VMSPLIT, etc

[Mason]

Hello Vladimir,

On 09/01/2015 19:06, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> On 09/01/15 17:46, Mason wrote:
>> On 09/01/2015 14:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 01:59:10PM +0100, Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yesterday, I used /dev/mem to mmap 2 GB and (to my surprise) it worked.
>>>> Specifically, I opened /dev/mem O_RDWR | O_SYNC
>>>> then called
>>>>   mmap(NULL, 1U<<31, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0x80000000);
>>>
>>> So you asked to map 2GB starting at 2GB physical.
>>>
>>>> And mmap returned a valid pointer.
>>>
>>> And that mapping would have been created to map physical addresses
>>> 0x80000000-0xffffffff inclusive.
>>>
>>>> I was expecting it to fail.
>>>>
>>>> - the kernel is configured with VMSPLIT_3G (3G/1G user/kernel)
>>>
>>> This has no bearing on the above.
>>
>> I don't understand why.
>>
>> mmap allocates virtual addresses in the user-space process, yes?
>> So if I had VMSPLIT_2G, user-space processes would be limited
>> to 2G virtual addresses, and could not create a single 2G map
>> on top of its stack and text space. Or am I missing something?
> 
> Because you are mmaping special file (dev/mem) mmap call is routed to
> the dedicated hook, responsible for all "magic" you see. Please, take a
> look at drivers/char/mem.c for details.

Errr, I thought it was clear I had read the source ;-)
("I know /dev/mem's mmap calls remap_pfn_range [...]")
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/char/mem.c#L307

Hence my ioremap vs remap_pfn_range subject ;-)

So are you saying I could use remap_pfn_range to map the
full 4G of PA space into a process's VA space?

Or, if I picked the VMSPLIT_2G option, are you saying
mmap'ing 2G would succeed? (I will test these two
scenarios ASAP.)

Regards.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/