On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 2:43 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 07:05:24 PST (-0800), guoren@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently, most 64-bit architectures (x86, parisc, powerpc, arm64,
> > s390, mips, sparc) have supported COMPAT mode. But they all have
> > history issues and can't use standard linux unistd.h. RISC-V would
> > be first standard __SYSCALL_COMPAT user of include/uapi/asm-generic
> > /unistd.h.
>
> TBH, I'd always sort of hoped we wouldn't have to do this: it's a lot of
> ABI surface to keep around for a use case I'm not really sure is ever
> going to get any traction (it's not like we have legacy 32-bit
> userspaces floating around, the 32-bit userspace is newer than the
> 64-bit userspace).
The low-end embedded market isn't usually that newsworthy, but the
machines ship in huge quantities, and they all run 32-bit user
space for good reasons:
The cheapest Linux systems at the moment use a low-end MIPS or
Arm core with a single DDR2 (32MB to 128MB) or DDR3 (128MB
to 512MB) memory chip that for now is a bit cheaper than a larger
LP-DDR4 (256MB+). The smaller configurations will go away over
time as they get outpriced by systems with LP-DDR4, but a 32-bit
system with 256MB will keep beating a 64-bit-only system with
512MB on price, and will run most workloads better than a 64-bit
system with the same amount of RAM.
On the Arm side, I hope that these systems will migrate to Armv8
based designs (Cortex-A53/A35 or newer) running 64-bit kernel
with 32-bit user space to replace the currently dominant but aging
32-bit Cortex-A7 cores. As you say, RISC-V is at a disadvantage
here because there is no existing 32-bit ecosystem, but it may take
a chunk of that market anyway based on licensing cost. Between
doing this using pure 32-bit cores or on mixed 32/64-bit cores,
I found Guo Ren's explanation very sensible, it lets you use the
same chip both as a low-end embedded version with SiP
memory, or using an external DDR3/LPDDR4 chip with enough
capacity to run a generic 64-bit distro.
> My assumption is that users who actually wanted the
> memory savings (likely a very small number) would be better served with
> rv64/ilp32, as that'll allow the larger registers that the hardware
> supports. From some earlier discussions it looks like rv64/ilp32 isn't
> going to be allowed, though, so this seems like the only way to go.
Right, between rv32 user space and a hypothetical rv64-ilp32 target,
I think it's clear that the former is better because it means introducing
only one fringe ABI rather than two incompatible ones with minor
performance differences.
Arnd
