Linux-kselftest Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Björn Töpel" <>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>,,,,
	Martin KaFai Lau <>, Song Liu <>,
	Yonghong Song <>, Andrii Nakryiko <>,
	Shuah Khan <>, Netdev <>,
	bpf <>,,
	LKML <>,,,
Subject: Re: arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 20:30:23 +0100
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 03:14, Palmer Dabbelt <> wrote:
> There's four patches here, but only one of them actually does anything.  The
> first patch fixes a BPF selftests build failure on my machine and has already
> been sent to the list separately.  The next three are just staged such that
> there are some patches that avoid changing any functionality pulled out from
> the whole point of those refactorings, with two cleanups and then the idea.
> Maybe this is an odd thing to say in a cover letter, but I'm not actually sure
> this patch set is a good idea.  The issue of extra moves after calls came up as
> I was reviewing some unrelated performance optimizations to the RISC-V BPF JIT.
> I figured I'd take a whack at performing the optimization in the context of the
> arm64 port just to get a breath of fresh air, and I'm not convinced I like the
> results.
> That said, I think I would accept something like this for the RISC-V port
> because we're already doing a multi-pass optimization for shrinking function
> addresses so it's not as much extra complexity over there.  If we do that we
> should probably start puling some of this code into the shared BPF compiler,
> but we're also opening the doors to more complicated BPF JIT optimizations.
> Given that the BPF JIT appears to have been designed explicitly to be
> simple/fast as opposed to perform complex optimization, I'm not sure this is a
> sane way to move forward.

Obviously I can only speak for myself and the RISC-V JIT, but given
that we already have opened the door for more advanced translations
(branch relaxation e.g.), I think that this makes sense. At the same
time we don't want to go all JVM on the JITs. :-P

> I figured I'd send the patch set out as more of a question than anything else.
> Specifically:
> * How should I go about measuring the performance of these sort of
>   optimizations?  I'd like to balance the time it takes to run the JIT with the
>   time spent executing the program, but I don't have any feel for what real BPF
>   programs look like or have any benchmark suite to run.  Is there something
>   out there this should be benchmarked against?  (I'd also like to know that to
>   run those benchmarks on the RISC-V port.)

If you run the selftests 'test_progs' with -v it'll measure/print the
execution time of the programs. I'd say *most* BPF program invokes a
helper (via call). It would be interesting to see, for say the
selftests, how often the optimization can be performed.

> * Is this the sort of thing that makes sense in a BPF JIT?  I guess I've just
>   realized I turned "review this patch" into a way bigger rabbit hole than I
>   really want to go down...

I'd say 'yes'. My hunch, and the workloads I've seen, BPF programs are
usually loaded, and then resident for a long time. So, the JIT time is
not super critical. The FB/Cilium folks can definitely provide a
better sample point, than my hunch. ;-)


  parent reply index

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-28  2:11 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
2020-02-11  0:15   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-04 19:30 ` Björn Töpel [this message]
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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-kselftest Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-kselftest/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-kselftest linux-kselftest/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-kselftest

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone