From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754191AbcFGIKd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 04:10:33 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41726 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751196AbcFGIKb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 04:10:31 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:10:43 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Z Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] arm64: bpf: optimize JMP_CALL
Message-ID: <20160607081042.GA9951@arm.com>
References: <1465077630-633-1-git-send-email-zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
 <1465077630-633-2-git-send-email-zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
 <20160606170515.GK669@arm.com>
 <CABg9mcvXxAvWxuXJbBbQEy5_nsgPjT6Y20CFNKMkOYJp4NrnFQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABg9mcvXxAvWxuXJbBbQEy5_nsgPjT6Y20CFNKMkOYJp4NrnFQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:36:03PM -0700, Z Lim wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 03:00:29PM -0700, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
> >> Remove superfluous stack frame, saving us 3 instructions for
> >> every JMP_CALL.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 3 ---
> >>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> >> index 51abc97..7ae304e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> >> @@ -578,11 +578,8 @@ emit_cond_jmp:
> >>               const u64 func = (u64)__bpf_call_base + imm;
> >>
> >>               emit_a64_mov_i64(tmp, func, ctx);
> >> -             emit(A64_PUSH(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx);
> >> -             emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_FP, A64_SP), ctx);
> >>               emit(A64_BLR(tmp), ctx);
> >>               emit(A64_MOV(1, r0, A64_R(0)), ctx);
> >> -             emit(A64_POP(A64_FP, A64_LR, A64_SP), ctx);
> >>               break;
> >>       }
> >
> > Is the jitted code intended to be unwindable by standard tools?
> 
> Before this patch:
>     bpf_prologue => push stack frame
>     ...
>     jmp_call => push stack frame, call bpf_helper*, pop stack frame
>     ...
>     bpf_epilogue => pop stack frame, ret
> 
> Now:
>     bpf_prologue => push stack frame
>     ...
>     jmp_call => call bpf_helper*
>     ...
>     bpf_epilogue => pop stack frame, ret
> 
> *Note: bpf_helpers in kernel/bpf/helper.c
> 
> So yes, it's still unwindable.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. I just wondered whether or not it needs to
be unwindable at all...

Will