On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:14:04AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:45 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:10:54PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > > Right. That's what I was trying to say (apparently not so well :). The
> > > 0x101 address is the end of t
It turns out that the heap problem I've been investigating results from
incorrect linking. The SpecCPU .cfg file I was using had
EXTRA_LIBS = -lhugetlbfs
in it, which forced libhugetlbfs to be linked before other libraries and
we need to be last to work properly.
Many thanks to Adam for brainst
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 11:45 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:10:54PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > Right. That's what I was trying to say (apparently not so well :). The
> > 0x101 address is the end of the BSS padding. I expected it to be
> > at 0x200 because I
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 02:10:54PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:14 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:03:56AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > > From my understanding, with proper BSS padding virtaddr + memsz should
> > > end up aligned on a 1TB boundary, 0x
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:14 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:03:56AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > From my understanding, with proper BSS padding virtaddr + memsz should
> > end up aligned on a 1TB boundary, 0x200 in this case. But
> > readelf shows it totals 0x101000
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:03:56AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:53 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:06:39PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > > Unfortunately I can't seem to get a large alignment to work as I'd
> > > expect at the end of the BSS. No matter h
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:53 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:06:39PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> > Unfortunately I can't seem to get a large alignment to work as I'd
> > expect at the end of the BSS. No matter how I define it,
> >
> > . = ALIGN(0x100)
> >
> > or
> >
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:06:39PM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 12:26 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > Well, from the comment, I think the 1.5TB value was there attempting
> > to make the script work with *both* old kernels that have the 1-1.5TB
> > restriction and newer kernels
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 12:26 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> Well, from the comment, I think the 1.5TB value was there attempting
> to make the script work with *both* old kernels that have the 1-1.5TB
> restriction and newer kernels with the dynamic hugepage area.
>
> Execpt of course, that that wou
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:21:44AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> David,
>
> Currently, the elf64ppc.xB linker script is the only script which places
> its hugepages in 1TB segments. This appears to be due to an old
> restriction which you fixed long ago in commit
> c594adad5653491813959277fb87a2fef54c
David,
Currently, the elf64ppc.xB linker script is the only script which places
its hugepages in 1TB segments. This appears to be due to an old
restriction which you fixed long ago in commit
c594adad5653491813959277fb87a2fef54c4e05 where hugepages had to reside
between 1TB and 1.5TB in the address
11 matches
Mail list logo
