Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:27:38 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Alexander Lochmann <alexander.lochmann@tu-dortmund.de>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Horst Schirmeier <horst.schirmeier@tu-dortmund.de>
Subject:   Re: Address Collision using i386 4G/4G Memory Split
Message-ID:  <20181218052738.GZ60291@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <38ad0d50-c776-9deb-d56b-db8db548cefc@tu-dortmund.de>
References:  <38ad0d50-c776-9deb-d56b-db8db548cefc@tu-dortmund.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:51:48PM +0100, Alexander Lochmann wrote:
> Hi folks!
> 
> According to git commit e3089a (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1463)
> FreeBSD 12.0 i386 uses separate address spaces for kernel and user
> space. So basically two memory areas, one in each space, can have the
> same address.
> Is this possible with FreeBSD 12.0? Is this likely to happen?
The feature was added to HEAD during this summer, before stable/12 was
branched.

> 
> On my opinion, this is also very expensive in terms of performance.
> Any copy{in,out} has to flush the TLB.
> (http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/i386/i386/copyout_fast.s#L91)
> Why are you still using this 4G/4G approach?
Because it is needed for i386 to self-host, in modern world 1G KVA
is too small, and because it provides Meltdown mitigation.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20181218052738.GZ60291>