Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <3fc711c8-4981-26f7-689c-549bdafa40ac@benettiengineering.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:32:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.3
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mm: fix no-MMU ZERO_PAGE() implementation
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
References: <20221017233700.84918-1-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>
 <3fb4afd1-2eea-4a71-a914-f8208b11f9f4@app.fastmail.com>
 <972a3be7-4522-b4f0-adfa-6b42be56c52f@benettiengineering.com>
 <dc5a5c40-8e96-4f91-a3c6-5a1fc8b26ad1@app.fastmail.com>
From:   Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>
In-Reply-To: <dc5a5c40-8e96-4f91-a3c6-5a1fc8b26ad1@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/10/22 20:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, at 19:44, Giulio Benetti wrote:
>> On 18/10/22 09:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, at 1:37 AM, Giulio Benetti wrote:
>>>> Actually in no-MMU SoCs(i.e. i.MXRT) ZERO_PAGE(vaddr) expands to
>>
>>> It looks like we dropped the ball on this when it came up last.
>>> I'm also not sure when we started requiring this, any idea?
>>
>> No to be honest. But in my case I've met ZERO_PAGE() calling in sdhci
>> driver. And as stated on the ML link above:
>> ```
>> But I wonder if it's safe for noMMU architectures to go on without a
>> working ZERO_PAGE(0).  It has uses scattered throughout the tree, in
>> drivers, fs, crypto and more, and it's not at all obvious (to me) that
>> they all depend on CONFIG_MMU.
>> ```
>> And I've found this driver that requires it and probably is not the last
>> since imxrt support is not complete.
>>
>>> I can see that microblaze-nommu used BUG() in ZERO_PAGE(), so at
>>> whenever microblaze last worked, we clearly did not call it.
>>
>> This probably means that microblaze-nommu doesn't use drivers or other
>> subsystems that require ZERO_PAGE().
> 
> To clarify: microblaze-nommu support was removed two years ago,
> and probably was already broken for a while before that.
> 
>>> In addition to your fix, I see that arm is the only architecture
>>> that defines 'empty_zero_page' as a pointer to the page, when
>>> everything else just makes it a pointer to the data itself,
>>> or an 'extern char empty_zero_page[]' array, which we may want
>>> to change for consistency.
>>
>> I was about doing it, but then I tought to move one piece at a time.
> 
> Right, it would definitely be a separate patch, but it
> can be a series of two patches. We probably wouldn't need to
> backport the second patch that turns it into a static allocation.

I've sent the patchset of 2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221018222503.90118-1-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com/T/#t

I'm wondering if it makes sense to send a patchset for all those
architectures that have only one zero page. I've seen that for example
loongarch has more than one. But for the others I find the array
approach more linear, with less code all around and a bit faster in term
of code execution(of course really few, but better than nothing) since
that array is in .bss, so it will be zeroed earlier during a long
"memset" where assembly instructions for zeroing 8 bytes at a time are
used. What about this?

>> But yes, I can modify accordingly. That way we also avoid the early
>> allocation in pagint_init() since it would be a .bss array.
> 
>>> There are three references to empty_zero_page in architecture
>>> independent code, and while we don't seem to use any of them
>>> on Arm, they would clearly be wrong if we did:
>>>
>>> drivers/acpi/scan.c:#define INVALID_ACPI_HANDLE ((acpi_handle)empty_zero_page)
>>> drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c:      mspi->dma_dummy_tx = dma_map_single(dev, empty_zero_page, PAGE_SIZE,
>>> include/linux/raid/pq.h:# define raid6_empty_zero_page empty_zero_page
>>
>> For them I can send patches to substitute with PAGE_ZERO(0) correctly
>> adapted.
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea as well.

I've just sent a patchset for this:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221018215755.33566-1-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com/T/#t

Best regards
-- 
Giulio Benetti
CEO/CTO@Benetti Engineering sas