* Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] [240906 07:44]:

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:55:42AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024, at 09:14, Guo Ren wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 3:18 PM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

It's also unclear to me how we want this flag to interact with
the existing logic in arch_get_mmap_end(), which attempts to
limit the default mapping to a 47-bit address space already.

To optimize RISC-V progress, I recommend:

Step 1: Approve the patch.
Step 2: Update Go and OpenJDK's RISC-V backend to utilize it.
Step 3: Wait approximately several iterations for Go & OpenJDK
Step 4: Remove the 47-bit constraint in arch_get_mmap_end()

I really want to first see a plausible explanation about why
RISC-V can't just implement this using a 47-bit DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW
like all the other major architectures (x86, arm64, powerpc64),

FWIW arm64 actually limits DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW to 48-bit in the default
configuration. We end up with a 47-bit with 16K pages but for a
different reason that has to do with LPA2 support (I doubt we need this
for the user mapping but we need to untangle some of the macros there;
that's for a separate discussion).

That said, we haven't encountered any user space problems with a 48-bit
DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW. So I also think RISC-V should follow a similar
approach (47 or 48 bit default limit). Better to have some ABI
consistency between architectures. One can still ask for addresses above
this default limit via mmap().

I think that is best as well.

Can we please just do what x86 and arm64 does?

Thanks,
Liam