On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 02:15:59PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:53:49AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:18:12PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > > Opting-in to the higher address space is reasonable. However, it is not > > > my preference, because the purpose of this flag is to ensure that > > > allocations do not exceed 47-bits, so it is a clearer ABI to have the > > > applications that want this guarantee to be the ones setting the flag, > > > rather than the applications that want the higher bits setting the flag. > > > > Yes, this would be ideal. Unfortunately those applications don't know > > they need to set a flag in order to work. > > It's not a regression, the applications never worked (on platforms that > do not have this default). The 47-bit default would allow applications > that didn't work to start working at the cost of a non-ideal ABI. That > doesn't seem like a reasonable tradeoff to me. If applications want to > run on new hardware that has different requirements, shouldn't they be > required to update rather than expect the kernel will solve their > problems for them? That's a valid point but it depends on the application and how much you want to spend updating user-space. OpenJDK is fine, if you need a JIT you'll have to add support for that architecture anyway. But others are arch-agnostic, you just recompile to your target. It's not an ABI problem, more of an API one. The x86 case (and powerpc/arm64) was different, the 47-bit worked for a long time before expanding it. So it made a lot of sense to keep the same default. Anyway, the prctl() can go both ways, either expanding or limiting the default address space. So I'd be fine with such interface. -- Catalin
