From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264405AbTLKHWK (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:22:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264406AbTLKHWK (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:22:10 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([199.26.172.102]:49636 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264405AbTLKHWH (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:22:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:19:37 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Ed Sweetman , Nick Piggin , Donald Maner , Raul Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram. Message-ID: <20031211071937.GA8039@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , "Martin J. Bligh" , Ed Sweetman , Nick Piggin , Donald Maner , Raul Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3FD7FCF5.7030109@cyberone.com.au> <3FD801B3.7080604@wmich.edu> <20031211054111.GX8039@holomorphy.com> <1289530000.1071126517@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1289530000.1071126517@[10.10.2.4]> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches. >> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably >> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon. >> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the >> top of the process address space. On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:08:38PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"? > Yeah, right ;-) No specific address is ever cited as a requirement for stack placement; stack immediately below text is merely given as a "typical arrangement". i.e. "Although applications may control their memory assignments, the typical arrangement appears below: [diagram and other bits]" It then goes on to say, "Processes, therefore, shount _not_ depend on finding their stack at a particular virtual address." The process address space boundary is, however, stated as a requirement: "the reserved area shall not consume more than 1GB of the address space." -- wli