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: <a84e2199-a2b9-e489-f75d-ea57d227a6b5@benettiengineering.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 18:37:59 +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>
 <3fc711c8-4981-26f7-689c-549bdafa40ac@benettiengineering.com>
 <e98b0727-5a5b-4f1d-bbf6-1194e6df299a@app.fastmail.com>
From:   Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>
In-Reply-To: <e98b0727-5a5b-4f1d-bbf6-1194e6df299a@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 19/10/22 09:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022, at 00:32, Giulio Benetti wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> 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?
> 
> The initial zeroing should not matter at all in terms of performance,
> I think the only question is whether one wants a single zero page
> to be used everywhere or one per NUMA node to give better locality
> for a cache miss.
> 
> My guess is that for a system with 4KB pages, all the data
> in the zero page are typically available in a CPU cache already,
> so it doesn't matter, but it's possible that some machines benefit
> from having per-node pages when the page size isn't tiny compared
> to the typical cache sizes.
> 
> We should probably not touch this for any of the other architectures.

Ok, thanks for the explanation!

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