On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:29:56AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 8/27/24 22:49, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > Some applications rely on placing data in free bits addresses allocated > > by mmap. Various architectures (eg. x86, arm64, powerpc) restrict the > > address returned by mmap to be less than the maximum address space, > > unless the hint address is greater than this value. > > Which applications are these, btw? Java and Go require this feature. These applications store flags that represent the type of data a pointer holds in the upper bits of the pointer itself. > > Is this the same crowd as the folks who are using the address tagging > features like X86_FEATURE_LAM? Yes it is. LAM helps to mask the bits out on x86, and this feature could be used to ensure that mmap() doesn't return an address with bits that would be masked out. I chose not to tie this feature to x86 LAM which only has masking boundaries at 57 and 48 bits to allow it to be independent of architecture specific address masking. > > Even if they are different, I also wonder if a per-mmap() thing > MAP_BELOW_HINT is really what we want. Or should the applications > you're trying to service here use a similar mechanism to how LAM affects > the *whole* address space as opposed to an individual mmap(). LAM is required to be enabled for entire address spaces because the hardware needs to be configured to mask out the bits. It is not possible to influence the granularity of LAM in the current implementation. However mmap() does not require any of this hardware configuration so it is possible to have finer granularity. A way to restrict mmap() to return LAM compliant addresses in an entire address space also doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with this flag. This flag allows for the greatest degree of control from applications. I don't believe there is additionally performance saving that could be achieved by having this be on a per address space basis. Link: https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/671368 [1] - Charlie
