From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>,
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] riscv, bpf: Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:30:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sf2eohj2.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240130040958.230673-5-pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:
> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>
> In the current RV64 JIT, if we just don't initialize the TCC in subprog,
> the TCC can be propagated from the parent process to the subprocess, but
> the TCC of the parent process cannot be restored when the subprocess
> exits. Since the RV64 TCC is initialized before saving the callee saved
> registers into the stack, we cannot use the callee saved register to
> pass the TCC, otherwise the original value of the callee saved register
> will be destroyed. So we implemented mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls
> similar to x86_64, i.e. using a non-callee saved register to transfer
> the TCC between functions, and saving that register to the stack to
> protect the TCC value. At the same time, we also consider the scenario
> of mixing trampoline.
>
> Tests test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative
> testcases of test_progs*.
Ok, I'll summarize, so that I know that I get it. ;-)
All BPF progs (except the main), get the current TCC passed in a6. TCC
is stored in each BPF stack frame.
During tail calls, the TCC from the stack is loaded, decremented, and
stored to the stack again.
Mixing bpf2bpf/tailcalls means that each *BPF stackframe* can perform up
to "current TCC to max_tailscalls" number of calls.
main_prog() calls subprog1(). subprog1() can perform max_tailscalls.
subprog1() returns, and main_prog() calls subprog2(). subprog2() can
also perform max_tailscalls.
Correct?
Some comments below as well.
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 1 +
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 89 +++++++++++++--------------------
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> index 8b35f12a4452..d8be89dadf18 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct rv_jit_context {
> int nexentries;
> unsigned long flags;
> int stack_size;
> + int tcc_offset;
> };
>
> /* Convert from ninsns to bytes. */
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 3516d425c5eb..64e0c86d60c4 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -13,13 +13,11 @@
> #include <asm/patch.h>
> #include "bpf_jit.h"
>
> +#define RV_REG_TCC RV_REG_A6
> #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
> /* fentry and TCC init insns will be skipped on tailcall */
> #define RV_TAILCALL_OFFSET ((RV_FENTRY_NINSNS + 1) * 4)
>
> -#define RV_REG_TCC RV_REG_A6
> -#define RV_REG_TCC_SAVED RV_REG_S6 /* Store A6 in S6 if program do calls */
> -
> static const int regmap[] = {
> [BPF_REG_0] = RV_REG_A5,
> [BPF_REG_1] = RV_REG_A0,
> @@ -51,14 +49,12 @@ static const int pt_regmap[] = {
> };
>
> enum {
> - RV_CTX_F_SEEN_TAIL_CALL = 0,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_CALL = RV_REG_RA,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S1 = RV_REG_S1,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S2 = RV_REG_S2,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S3 = RV_REG_S3,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S4 = RV_REG_S4,
> RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S5 = RV_REG_S5,
> - RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S6 = RV_REG_S6,
> };
>
> static u8 bpf_to_rv_reg(int bpf_reg, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> @@ -71,7 +67,6 @@ static u8 bpf_to_rv_reg(int bpf_reg, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S3:
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S4:
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S5:
> - case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S6:
> __set_bit(reg, &ctx->flags);
> }
> return reg;
> @@ -86,7 +81,6 @@ static bool seen_reg(int reg, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S3:
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S4:
> case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S5:
> - case RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S6:
> return test_bit(reg, &ctx->flags);
> }
> return false;
> @@ -102,32 +96,6 @@ static void mark_call(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> __set_bit(RV_CTX_F_SEEN_CALL, &ctx->flags);
> }
>
> -static bool seen_call(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> -{
> - return test_bit(RV_CTX_F_SEEN_CALL, &ctx->flags);
> -}
> -
> -static void mark_tail_call(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> -{
> - __set_bit(RV_CTX_F_SEEN_TAIL_CALL, &ctx->flags);
> -}
> -
> -static bool seen_tail_call(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> -{
> - return test_bit(RV_CTX_F_SEEN_TAIL_CALL, &ctx->flags);
> -}
> -
> -static u8 rv_tail_call_reg(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> -{
> - mark_tail_call(ctx);
> -
> - if (seen_call(ctx)) {
> - __set_bit(RV_CTX_F_SEEN_S6, &ctx->flags);
> - return RV_REG_S6;
> - }
> - return RV_REG_A6;
> -}
> -
> static bool is_32b_int(s64 val)
> {
> return -(1L << 31) <= val && val < (1L << 31);
> @@ -252,10 +220,7 @@ static void __build_epilogue(bool is_tail_call, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> emit_ld(RV_REG_S5, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
> store_offset -= 8;
> }
> - if (seen_reg(RV_REG_S6, ctx)) {
> - emit_ld(RV_REG_S6, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
> - store_offset -= 8;
> - }
> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
Why do you need to restore RV_REG_TCC? We're passing RV_REG_TCC (a6) as
an argument at all call-sites, and for tailcalls we're loading from the
stack.
Is this to fake the a6 argument for the tail-call? If so, it's better to
move it to emit_bpf_tail_call(), instead of letting all programs pay for
it.
>
> emit_addi(RV_REG_SP, RV_REG_SP, stack_adjust, ctx);
> /* Set return value. */
> @@ -343,7 +308,6 @@ static void emit_branch(u8 cond, u8 rd, u8 rs, int rvoff,
> static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> {
> int tc_ninsn, off, start_insn = ctx->ninsns;
> - u8 tcc = rv_tail_call_reg(ctx);
>
> /* a0: &ctx
> * a1: &array
> @@ -366,9 +330,11 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> /* if (--TCC < 0)
> * goto out;
> */
> - emit_addi(RV_REG_TCC, tcc, -1, ctx);
> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, ctx->tcc_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
> + emit_addi(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_TCC, -1, ctx);
> off = ninsns_rvoff(tc_ninsn - (ctx->ninsns - start_insn));
> emit_branch(BPF_JSLT, RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_ZERO, off, ctx);
> + emit_sd(RV_REG_SP, ctx->tcc_offset, RV_REG_TCC, ctx);
>
> /* prog = array->ptrs[index];
> * if (!prog)
> @@ -767,7 +733,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
> int i, ret, offset;
> int *branches_off = NULL;
> int stack_size = 0, nregs = m->nr_args;
> - int retval_off, args_off, nregs_off, ip_off, run_ctx_off, sreg_off;
> + int retval_off, args_off, nregs_off, ip_off, run_ctx_off, sreg_off, tcc_off;
> struct bpf_tramp_links *fentry = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY];
> struct bpf_tramp_links *fexit = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FEXIT];
> struct bpf_tramp_links *fmod_ret = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_MODIFY_RETURN];
> @@ -812,6 +778,8 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
> *
> * FP - sreg_off [ callee saved reg ]
> *
> + * FP - tcc_off [ tail call count ] BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX
> + *
> * [ pads ] pads for 16 bytes alignment
> */
>
> @@ -853,6 +821,11 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
> stack_size += 8;
> sreg_off = stack_size;
>
> + if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX) {
> + stack_size += 8;
> + tcc_off = stack_size;
> + }
> +
> stack_size = round_up(stack_size, 16);
>
> if (!is_struct_ops) {
> @@ -879,6 +852,10 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
> emit_addi(RV_REG_FP, RV_REG_SP, stack_size, ctx);
> }
>
> + /* store tail call count */
> + if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX)
> + emit_sd(RV_REG_FP, -tcc_off, RV_REG_TCC, ctx);
> +
> /* callee saved register S1 to pass start time */
> emit_sd(RV_REG_FP, -sreg_off, RV_REG_S1, ctx);
>
> @@ -932,6 +909,9 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
>
> if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG) {
> restore_args(nregs, args_off, ctx);
> + /* restore TCC to RV_REG_TCC before calling the original function */
> + if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX)
> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, -tcc_off, RV_REG_FP, ctx);
> ret = emit_call((const u64)orig_call, true, ctx);
> if (ret)
> goto out;
> @@ -963,6 +943,9 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
> ret = emit_call((const u64)__bpf_tramp_exit, true, ctx);
> if (ret)
> goto out;
> + } else if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_TAIL_CALL_CTX) {
> + /* restore TCC to RV_REG_TCC before calling the original function */
> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, -tcc_off, RV_REG_FP, ctx);
> }
>
> if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_RESTORE_REGS)
> @@ -1455,6 +1438,9 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> + /* restore TCC from stack to RV_REG_TCC */
> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, ctx->tcc_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
> +
> ret = emit_call(addr, fixed_addr, ctx);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> @@ -1733,8 +1719,7 @@ void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> stack_adjust += 8;
> if (seen_reg(RV_REG_S5, ctx))
> stack_adjust += 8;
> - if (seen_reg(RV_REG_S6, ctx))
> - stack_adjust += 8;
> + stack_adjust += 8; /* RV_REG_TCC */
>
> stack_adjust = round_up(stack_adjust, 16);
> stack_adjust += bpf_stack_adjust;
> @@ -1749,7 +1734,8 @@ void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> * (TCC) register. This instruction is skipped for tail calls.
> * Force using a 4-byte (non-compressed) instruction.
> */
> - emit(rv_addi(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_ZERO, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT), ctx);
> + if (!bpf_is_subprog(ctx->prog))
> + emit(rv_addi(RV_REG_TCC, RV_REG_ZERO, MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT), ctx);
You're conditionally emitting the instruction. Doesn't this break
RV_TAILCALL_OFFSET?
Björn
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-30 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-30 4:09 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls for RV64 Pu Lehui
2024-01-30 4:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] riscv, bpf: Remove redundant ctx->offset initialization Pu Lehui
2024-01-30 16:04 ` Björn Töpel
2024-01-30 4:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] riscv, bpf: Using kvcalloc to allocate cache buffer Pu Lehui
2024-01-30 16:05 ` Björn Töpel
2024-01-30 4:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] riscv, bpf: Add RV_TAILCALL_OFFSET macro to format tailcall offset Pu Lehui
2024-01-30 16:05 ` Björn Töpel
2024-01-30 4:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] riscv, bpf: Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls Pu Lehui
2024-01-30 17:30 ` Björn Töpel [this message]
2024-02-01 8:22 ` Pu Lehui
2024-02-01 10:10 ` Björn Töpel
2024-02-01 12:10 ` Pu Lehui
2024-02-01 13:35 ` Björn Töpel
2024-02-02 9:44 ` Pu Lehui
2024-02-02 13:04 ` Björn Töpel
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=87sf2eohj2.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us \
--to=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luke.r.nels@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=pulehui@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.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).