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

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 3/1/22 6:01 AM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I think you will find way more than five instructions in your version -
> the compiler will have to issue code to decode the protection bits,
> probably using a table of branches or absolute PC values, or possibly
> the worst case of using multiple comparisons and branches. It then has
> to load constants that may be moved using movw on ARMv7, but on
> older architectures would have to be created from multiple instructions
> or loaded from the literal pool. Then there'll be instructions to load
> the address of "user_pgprot", retrieve its value, and bitwise or that.
> 
> Therefore, I fail to see how your approach of getting rid of the table
> is somehow "better" than what we currently have in terms of the effect
> on the resulting code.
> 
> If you don't like the __P and __S stuff and two arch_* hooks, you could
> move the table into arch code along with vm_get_page_prot() without the
> additional unnecessary hooks, while keeping all the benefits of the
> table lookup.

Okay, will change the arm's vm_get_page_prot() implementation as suggested.