From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266550AbUBLRbv (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:31:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266552AbUBLRbu (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:31:50 -0500 Received: from cs24243203-239.austin.rr.com ([24.243.203.239]:29452 "EHLO raptor.int.mccr.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266550AbUBLRbr (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:31:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:31:43 -0600 From: Dave McCracken To: Linus Torvalds cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] get_unmapped_area() change -> non booting machine Message-ID: <362010000.1076607103@[10.1.1.5]> In-Reply-To: References: <1076384799.893.5.camel@gaston> <20040210173738.GA9894@mail.shareable.org> <20040213002358.1dd5c93a.ak@suse.de> <20040212100446.GA2862@elte.hu> <339500000.1076605352@[10.1.1.5]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --On Thursday, February 12, 2004 09:17:44 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > it it uses RLIMIT_STACK plus a maximum limit (although it's a _big_ > maximum limit, much bigger than we'd use for BSS). So we could do > something similar for the BSS, with obviously a smaller hard limit (on a > 64-bit architecture a gigabyte is fine, but ..) Hmm... would it work to just do something like 'if the previous vma is grow-up then allocate from the top of the hole'? It'd eliminate the need for a hard limit and should pretty much stay out of the way of BSS. Dave McCracken