On 10/06/18 at 02:33pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:

* Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+========================================================
+| Complete virtual memory map with 4-level page tables |
+========================================================

quoted

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+start addr       | offset     | end addr         |  size   | VM area description
+-----------------|------------|------------------|---------|--------------------

quoted

+
+# Identical layout to the 56-bit one from here on:
+
+ffffff8000000000 | -512    GB | fffffffeefffffff | ~507 GB | ... unused hole
+ffffffef00000000 |  -68    GB | fffffffeffffffff |   64 GB | EFI region mapping space

quoted

+========================================================
+| Complete virtual memory map with 5-level page tables |
+========================================================

quoted

+ffffff8000000000 |   -0.5  TB | ffffffeeffffffff |  444 GB | ... unused hole
+
+# Identical layout to the 47-bit one from here on:
+
+ffffffef00000000 |  -68    GB | fffffffeffffffff |   64 GB | EFI region mapping space

So patch #2 appears to have introduced an error/typo in the 47-bit table. Note the weird size 
and discontinuity of the 'unused hole' in the 47-bit table, and compare it with 56-bit table:

  fffffffeefffffff
  ffffffeeffffffff

(Note how the incorrect end address was cargo-cult-copied into the 'size' field of ~507 GB...)

The correct number is the 56-bit one, and both tables should show the following identical 
layout:

  ffffff8000000000 | -512    GB | fffffffeefffffff |  444 GB | ... unused hole
  ffffffef00000000 |  -68    GB | fffffffeffffffff |   64 GB | EFI region mapping space

Agreed?

Yes, you are right. I wondered why the size is a weird unaligned value.
Sorry about that.

Thanks
Baoquan