Re: [PATCH V3 09/30] arm/mm: Enable ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT

Anshuman Khandual
2022-03-09T11:45:28Z

On 3/2/22 16:44, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Anshuman,
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:07 PM Anshuman Khandual
> <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/22 3:35 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:51 AM Anshuman Khandual
>>> <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/22 12:35 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>> Le 02/03/2022 à 04:22, Anshuman Khandual a écrit :
>>>>>> On 3/1/22 1:46 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 01/03/2022 à 01:31, Russell King (Oracle) a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:30:41AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/22 4:27 PM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:17:32PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This defines and exports a platform specific custom vm_get_page_prot() via
>>>>>>>>>>> subscribing ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT. Subsequently all __SXXX and __PXXX
>>>>>>>>>>> macros can be dropped which are no longer needed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I would really like to know is why having to run _code_ to work out
>>>>>>>>>> what the page protections need to be is better than looking it up in a
>>>>>>>>>> table.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not only is this more expensive in terms of CPU cycles, it also brings
>>>>>>>>>> additional code size with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm struggling to see what the benefit is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Currently vm_get_page_prot() is also being _run_ to fetch required page
>>>>>>>>> protection values. Although that is being run in the core MM and from a
>>>>>>>>> platform perspective __SXXX, __PXXX are just being exported for a table.
>>>>>>>>> Looking it up in a table (and applying more constructs there after) is
>>>>>>>>> not much different than a clean switch case statement in terms of CPU
>>>>>>>>> usage. So this is not more expensive in terms of CPU cycles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So do I.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, let's base this disagreement on some evidence. Here is the
>>>>>>>> present 32-bit ARM implementation:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 00000048 <vm_get_page_prot>:
>>>>>>>> 48: e200000f and r0, r0, #15
>>>>>>>> 4c: e3003000 movw r3, #0
>>>>>>>> 4c: R_ARM_MOVW_ABS_NC .LANCHOR1
>>>>>>>> 50: e3403000 movt r3, #0
>>>>>>>> 50: R_ARM_MOVT_ABS .LANCHOR1
>>>>>>>> 54: e7930100 ldr r0, [r3, r0, lsl #2]
>>>>>>>> 58: e12fff1e bx lr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is five instructions long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On ppc32 I get:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00000094 <vm_get_page_prot>:
>>>>>>> 94: 3d 20 00 00 lis r9,0
>>>>>>> 96: R_PPC_ADDR16_HA .data..ro_after_init
>>>>>>> 98: 54 84 16 ba rlwinm r4,r4,2,26,29
>>>>>>> 9c: 39 29 00 00 addi r9,r9,0
>>>>>>> 9e: R_PPC_ADDR16_LO .data..ro_after_init
>>>>>>> a0: 7d 29 20 2e lwzx r9,r9,r4
>>>>>>> a4: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>>>>>>> a8: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please show that your new implementation is not more expensive on
>>>>>>>> 32-bit ARM. Please do so by building a 32-bit kernel, and providing
>>>>>>>> the disassembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With your series I get:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00000000 <vm_get_page_prot>:
>>>>>>> 0: 3d 20 00 00 lis r9,0
>>>>>>> 2: R_PPC_ADDR16_HA .rodata
>>>>>>> 4: 39 29 00 00 addi r9,r9,0
>>>>>>> 6: R_PPC_ADDR16_LO .rodata
>>>>>>> 8: 54 84 16 ba rlwinm r4,r4,2,26,29
>>>>>>> c: 7d 49 20 2e lwzx r10,r9,r4
>>>>>>> 10: 7d 4a 4a 14 add r10,r10,r9
>>>>>>> 14: 7d 49 03 a6 mtctr r10
>>>>>>> 18: 4e 80 04 20 bctr
>>>>>>> 1c: 39 20 03 15 li r9,789
>>>>>>> 20: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>>>>>>> 24: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>>>>>> 28: 39 20 01 15 li r9,277
>>>>>>> 2c: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>>>>>>> 30: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>>>>>> 34: 39 20 07 15 li r9,1813
>>>>>>> 38: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>>>>>>> 3c: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>>>>>> 40: 39 20 05 15 li r9,1301
>>>>>>> 44: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>>>>>>> 48: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>>>>>> 4c: 39 20 01 11 li r9,273
>>>>>>> 50: 4b ff ff d0 b 20 <vm_get_page_prot+0x20>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is definitely more expensive, it implements a table of branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, will split out the PPC32 implementation that retains existing
>>>>>> table look up method. Also planning to keep that inside same file
>>>>>> (arch/powerpc/mm/mmap.c), unless you have a difference preference.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was not to get something specific for PPC32, but to amplify on
>>>>> Russell's objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> As this is bad for ARM and bad for PPC32, do we have any evidence that
>>>>> your change is good for any other architecture ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked PPC64 and there is exactly the same drawback. With the current
>>>>> implementation it is a small function performing table read then a few
>>>>> adjustment. After your change it is a bigger function implementing a
>>>>> table of branches.
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if this would not be the case for any other switch case
>>>> statement on the platform ? Is there something specific/different just
>>>> on vm_get_page_prot() implementation ? Are you suggesting that switch
>>>> case statements should just be avoided instead ?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as requested by Russell, could you look at the disassembly for other
>>>>> architectures and show us that ARM and POWERPC are the only ones for
>>>>> which your change is not optimal ?
>>>>
>>>> But the primary purpose of this series is not to guarantee optimized
>>>> code on platform by platform basis, while migrating from a table based
>>>> look up method into a switch case statement.
>>>>
>>>> But instead, the purposes is to remove current levels of unnecessary
>>>> abstraction while converting a vm_flags access combination into page
>>>> protection. The switch case statement for platform implementation of
>>>> vm_get_page_prot() just seemed logical enough. Christoph's original
>>>> suggestion patch for x86 had the same implementation as well.
>>>>
>>>> But if the table look up is still better/preferred method on certain
>>>> platforms like arm or ppc32, will be happy to preserve that.
>>>
>>> I doubt the switch() variant would give better code on any platform.
>>>
>>> What about using tables everywhere, using designated initializers
>>> to improve readability?
>>
>> Designated initializers ? Could you please be more specific. A table look
>> up on arm platform would be something like this and arm_protection_map[]
>> needs to be updated with user_pgprot like before. Just wondering how a
>> designated initializer will help here.
>
> It's more readable than the original:
>
> pgprot_t protection_map[16] __ro_after_init = {
> __P000, __P001, __P010, __P011, __P100, __P101, __P110, __P111,
> __S000, __S001, __S010, __S011, __S100, __S101, __S110, __S111
> };
>
>>
>> static pgprot_t arm_protection_map[16] __ro_after_init = {
>> [VM_NONE] = __PAGE_NONE,
>> [VM_READ] = __PAGE_READONLY,
>> [VM_WRITE] = __PAGE_COPY,
>> [VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = __PAGE_COPY,
>> [VM_EXEC] = __PAGE_READONLY_EXEC,
>> [VM_EXEC | VM_READ] = __PAGE_READONLY_EXEC,
>> [VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE] = __PAGE_COPY_EXEC,
>> [VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = __PAGE_COPY_EXEC,
>> [VM_SHARED] = __PAGE_NONE,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_READ] = __PAGE_READONLY,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_WRITE] = __PAGE_SHARED,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = __PAGE_SHARED,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_EXEC] = __PAGE_READONLY_EXEC,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_EXEC | VM_READ] = __PAGE_READONLY_EXEC,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE] = __PAGE_SHARED_EXEC,
>> [VM_SHARED | VM_EXEC | VM_WRITE | VM_READ] = __PAGE_SHARED_EXEC
>> };
>
> Yeah, like that.
>
> Seems like you already made such a conversion in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1645425519-9034-3-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/

Will rework the series in two different phases as mentioned on the other thread.