On 2012-06-12 07:53, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 12.06.2012, at 16:27, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > >> On 2012-06-12 07:12, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> This looks fishy to me... why should the kernel use a bigger address >>> space than hardware? For arm on x86_64 such a workaround was not >>> necessary iirc. >> >> I can tell you what I observe. That with a certain sequence of >> allocations the x86_64 kernel will quit accepting an address "near" >> (1<<38) as a hint for where to allocate memory and begin returning >> an addresses near (1<<48). > > Hrm, does -R work for you? :)
Lol. Actually I've tried it a couple of times: -R 32G. And, no, it doesn't work very well. ;-) r~
