On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:46:34PM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > I disagree. While it is nice to assert this property in the pmap, it is > > the wrong place. First of all, all pmaps need to be audited, at least on > > platforms with shared address space. It's not specific to x86. Second, > > part of the problem is that UVM does not handle its own constraints > > correctly. That means it is possible that some of the (then failing) > > requests could be fulfilled by correct code. In short, handling it in > > the pmap doesn't actually solve the problem completely either. > > I don't understand. If you can't enter the mapping into the TLB, who > cares what UVM does?
If UVM tries [0, n] and could have picked [1, n+1] as page numbers as well, will it try the latter after the pmap insert failed for the former? Joerg
