On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:15:25PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > On 18/06/2
On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jai
On 19/06/25 9:01 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
eOn Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:32:19PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wro
eOn Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:32:19PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > On 18/06/
On 19/06/25 1:53 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jai
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > > On 1
On 18/06/25 8:05 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 5:27 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, D
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:47:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 18/06/25 5:27 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > > Are you
On 18/06/25 7:37 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 5:27 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
Are you accounting for sys.max_map_count? If not, then you'll be hitting that
first.
run
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/06/25 5:27 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > Are you accounting for sys.max_map_count? If not, then you'll be hitting
> > that
> > first.
>
> run_vmtests.sh will run the t
On 18/06/25 5:27 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 18/06/25 5:07 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into something
logical :
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:57:38PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Are you accounting for sys.max_map_count? If not, then you'll be hitting that
> first.
* vm.max_map_count
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 05:15:50PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/06/25 5:07 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into
> > > something logical : )
> > >
> > > So I guess I am c
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:37:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> >
> > MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into
> > something logical : )
> >
To correct myself for being an idiot before, 256 x 4 KB is 1 MB not
On 18/06/25 5:07 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into something
logical : )
So I guess I am correct, if we can find two VMAs (except at the edge of the
high addr boundary)
with
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into something
> logical : )
>
> So I guess I am correct, if we can find two VMAs (except at the edge of the
> high addr boundary)
> with a gap of greater than MAP_CHUNK_SIZ
On 18/06/25 4:52 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:57:10PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
3./proc/self/maps may not always have gaps smaller than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE.
The gap between the first high address mapping and the p
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:57:10PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> > From: Donet Tom
> > 3./proc/self/maps may not always have gaps smaller than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE.
> > The gap between the first high address mapping and the previous mapping
> > is not smaller
On 18/06/25 3:36 pm, Donet Tom wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:57:10PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
Hi Dev
On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
In this patch, we are fixing three issues in the virtual_address_range
test.
1. validate_addr() checks if the allocated addr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:57:10PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
Hi Dev
> On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> > From: Donet Tom
> >
> > In this patch, we are fixing three issues in the virtual_address_range
> > test.
> >
> > 1. validate_addr() checks if the allocated address is within
On 16/06/25 9:36 pm, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
From: Donet Tom
In this patch, we are fixing three issues in the virtual_address_range
test.
1. validate_addr() checks if the allocated address is within the range.
In the current implementation, if addr is greater than HIGH_ADDR_MARK,
the test f
From: Donet Tom
In this patch, we are fixing three issues in the virtual_address_range
test.
1. validate_addr() checks if the allocated address is within the range.
In the current implementation, if addr is greater than HIGH_ADDR_MARK,
the test fails. However, addr will be greater than HIGH_ADDR
22 matches
Mail list logo
