From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
zlim.lnx@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 20:13:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ+HfNjkacY-KStgGJMgvQh2=2OsMnH6Saij+nAPBqQrSJcNWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200128021145.36774-5-palmerdabbelt@google.com>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 03:15, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com> wrote:
>
> On arm64, the BPF function ABI doesn't match the C function ABI. Specifically,
> arm64 encodes calls as `a0 = f(a0, a1, ...)` while BPF encodes calls as
> `BPF_REG_0 = f(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, ...)`. This discrepancy results in
> function calls being encoded as a two operations sequence that first does a C
> ABI calls and then moves the return register into the right place. This
> results in one extra instruction for every function call.
>
It's a lot of extra work for one reg-to-reg move, but it always
annoyed me in the RISC-V JIT. :-) So, if it *can* be avoided, why not.
[...]
>
> +static int dead_register(const struct jit_ctx *ctx, int offset, int bpf_reg)
Given that a lot of archs (RISC-V, arm?, MIPS?) might benefit from
this, it would be nice if it could be made generic (it already is
pretty much), and moved to kernel/bpf.
> +{
> + const struct bpf_prog *prog = ctx->prog;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = offset; i < prog->len; ++i) {
> + const struct bpf_insn *insn = &prog->insnsi[i];
> + const u8 code = insn->code;
> + const u8 bpf_dst = insn->dst_reg;
> + const u8 bpf_src = insn->src_reg;
> + const int writes_dst = !((code & BPF_ST) || (code & BPF_STX)
> + || (code & BPF_JMP32) || (code & BPF_JMP));
> + const int reads_dst = !((code & BPF_LD));
> + const int reads_src = true;
> +
> + /* Calls are a bit special in that they clobber a bunch of regisers. */
> + if ((code & (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) || (code & (BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL)))
> + if ((bpf_reg >= BPF_REG_0) && (bpf_reg <= BPF_REG_5))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* Registers that are read before they're written are alive.
> + * Most opcodes are of the form DST = DEST op SRC, but there
> + * are some exceptions.*/
> + if (bpf_src == bpf_reg && reads_src)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (bpf_dst == bpf_reg && reads_dst)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (bpf_dst == bpf_reg && writes_dst)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* Most BPF instructions are 8 bits long, but some ar 16 bits
> + * long. */
A bunch of spelling errors above.
Cheers,
Björn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-04 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-28 2:11 arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls Palmer Dabbelt
2020-01-28 2:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests/bpf: Elide a check for LLVM versions that can't compile it Palmer Dabbelt
2020-02-11 18:20 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-01-28 2:11 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: bpf: Convert bpf2a64 to a function Palmer Dabbelt
2020-01-28 2:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: bpf: Split the read and write halves of dst Palmer Dabbelt
2020-01-28 2:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls Palmer Dabbelt
2020-02-04 19:13 ` Björn Töpel [this message]
2020-02-11 0:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-04 19:30 ` Björn Töpel
2020-02-04 20:33 ` John Fastabend
2020-02-18 19:28 ` Palmer Dabbelt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJ+HfNjkacY-KStgGJMgvQh2=2OsMnH6Saij+nAPBqQrSJcNWw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmerdabbelt@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=zlim.lnx@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).