Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] bpf: introduce BPF dispatcher

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:30:13PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote:
> +
> +#define DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(name)					\
> +	unsigned int name##func(					\
> +		const void *xdp_ctx,					\
> +		const struct bpf_insn *insnsi,				\
> +		unsigned int (*bpf_func)(const void *,			\
> +					 const struct bpf_insn *))	\
> +	{								\
> +		return bpf_func(xdp_ctx, insnsi);			\
> +	}								\
> +	EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##func);			\
> +	struct bpf_dispatcher name = BPF_DISPATCHER_INIT(name);

The dispatcher function is a normal function. EXPORT_SYMBOL doesn't make it
'noinline'. struct bpf_dispatcher takes a pointer to it and that address is
used for text_poke.

In patch 3 __BPF_PROG_RUN calls dfunc() from two places.
What stops compiler from inlining it? Or partially inlining it in one
or the other place?

I guess it works, because your compiler didn't inline it?
Could you share how asm looks for bpf_prog_run_xdp()
(where __BPF_PROG_RUN is called) and asm for name##func() ?

I hope my guess that compiler didn't inline it is correct. Then extra noinline
will not hurt and that's the only thing needed to avoid the issue.