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

[Michael Ellerman]

Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 04:59:40PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Create a personality flag ADDR_LIMIT_47BIT to support applications
>> > that wish to transition from running in environments that support at
>> > most 47-bit VAs to environments that support larger VAs. This
>> > personality can be set to cause all allocations to be below the 47-bit
>> > boundary. Using MAP_FIXED with mmap() will bypass this restriction.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  include/uapi/linux/personality.h | 1 +
>> >  mm/mmap.c                        | 3 +++
>> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/personality.h b/include/uapi/linux/personality.h
>> > index 49796b7756af..cd3b8c154d9b 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/personality.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/personality.h
>> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ enum {
>> >  	WHOLE_SECONDS =		0x2000000,
>> >  	STICKY_TIMEOUTS	=	0x4000000,
>> >  	ADDR_LIMIT_3GB = 	0x8000000,
>> > +	ADDR_LIMIT_47BIT = 	0x10000000,
>> >  };
>> 
>> I wonder if ADDR_LIMIT_128T would be clearer?
>> 
>
> I don't follow, what does 128T represent?

Sorry, as Christophe explained it's 128 Terabytes, which is the actual
value of the address limit.

I think expressing it as the address value is probably more widely
understood, and would also match ADDR_LIMIT_3GB.

>> Have you looked at writing an update for the personality(2) man page? :)
>
> I will write an update to the man page if this patch is approved!

Yeah fair enough.

My (poorly expressed) point was that trying to describe the flag for the
man page might highlight that using the 47BIT name requires more
explanation.

cheers