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;
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 03:26:43 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/32] mm: Bring back vmalloc_exec
Message-ID: <ZGHesxEMsCfOewhy@moria.home.lan>
References: <ZFq7JhrhyrMTNfd/@moria.home.lan>
 <20230510064849.GC1851@quark.localdomain>
 <ZF6HHRDeUWLNtuL7@moria.home.lan>
 <20230513015752.GC3033@quark.localdomain>
 <ZGB1eevk/u2ssIBT@moria.home.lan>
 <20230514184325.GB9528@sol.localdomain>
 <ZGHFa4AprPSsEpeq@moria.home.lan>
 <20230515061346.GB15871@sol.localdomain>
 <ZGHOppBFcKEJkzCe@moria.home.lan>
 <20230515071343.GD15871@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230515071343.GD15871@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:13:43AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Sure, given that this is an optimization problem with a very small scope
> (decoding 6 fields from a bitstream), I was hoping for something easier and
> faster to iterate on than setting up a full kernel + bcachefs test environment
> and reverse engineering 500 lines of shell script.  But sure, I can look into
> that when I have a chance.

If you were actually wanting to help, that repository is the tool I use
for kernel development and testing - it's got documentation.

It builds a kernel, boots a VM and runs a test in about 15 seconds, no
need for lifting that code out to userspace.

> > Your approach wasn't any faster than the existing C version.
> 
> Well, it's your implementation of what you thought was "my approach".  It
> doesn't quite match what I had suggested.  As I mentioned in my last email, it's
> also unclear that your new code is ever actually executed, since you made it
> conditional on all fields being byte-aligned...

Eric, I'm not an idiot, that was one of the first things I checked. No
unaligned bkey formats were generated in my tests.

The latest iteration of your approach that I looked at compiled to ~250
bytes of code, vs. ~50 bytes for the dynamically generated unpack
functions. I'm sure it's possible to shave a bit off with some more
work, but looking at the generated code it's clear it's not going to be
competitive.