Re: [PATCH 03/22] mm: introduce MMF_KERNEL flag and set it for init_mm

[David Laight]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 14:07:01 +0200
"David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 8/3/26 15:59, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Le 14/07/2026 à 16:03, Kevin Brodsky a écrit :  
> >> mm code often needs to know whether some mm represents a kernel or
> >> user address space. This is currently done by comparing the mm
> >> pointer with &init_mm; besides not being particularly elegant, this
> >> ignores the fact that other mm's (e.g. efi_mm) may also represent
> >> parts of the kernel address space.
> >>
> >> Introduce a new mm flag MMF_KERNEL and set it for init_mm.
> >> Subsequent patches will use this flag to replace comparisons with
> >> &init_mm. No functional change is introduced for now.  
> > 
> > Did you consider performance impact ? This test is usually done in quite
> > critical memory handling functions.
> > 
> > init_mm is known at link time. Before your patch 08/22 there is just a
> > comparison of mm (r3) with a constant (loaded in r10):
> > 
> > c0014048 <assert_pte_locked>:
> > c0014048:    3d 40 c1 09     lis     r10,-16119
> > c001404c:    39 4a 03 98     addi    r10,r10,920
> > c0014050:    7c 03 50 00     cmpw    r3,r10
> > c0014054:    4d 82 00 20     beqlr
> > ...
> > 
> > After patch 08/22 we have, it first checks that mm is not 0, then it loads the
> > word located at mm+528 then AND it with 0x1. This load might be costly.
> > 
> > c0014048 <assert_pte_locked>:
> > c0014048:    2c 03 00 00     cmpwi   r3,0
> > c001404c:    7c 85 23 78     mr      r5,r4
> > c0014050:    41 82 00 10     beq     c0014060 <assert_pte_locked+0x18>
> > c0014054:    81 23 02 10     lwz     r9,528(r3)
> > c0014058:    71 29 00 01     andi.   r9,r9,1
> > c001405c:    4c 82 00 20     bnelr  
> 
> Is that a real problem, though?

The cost of the read is likely to matter most if the branch gets mispredicted.
I'd also guess the mm isn't usually NULL - so that branch needs to statically
predicted correctly as well.
I'd also not assume that the mm is in the cache (unless the surrounding code
has already accessed it), the L1 data caches are small.

	David


> 
> What we could do is to just keep the == &init_mm check internally on configs
> where we know that there is only a single such MM context.
> 
> Just a thought.
>