netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	jannh@google.com
Subject: bpf memory model. Was: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 16:17:26 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190126001725.roqqfrpysyljqiqx@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190125102312.GC4500@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:23:12AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:58:59PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:01:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > And this would again be the moment where I go pester you about the BPF
> > > memory model :-)
> > 
> > hehe :)
> > How do you propose to define it in a way that it applies to all archs
> > and yet doesn't penalize x86 ?
> > "Assume minimum execution ordering model" the way kernel does
> > unfortunately is not usable, since bpf doesn't have a luxury
> > of using nice #defines that convert into nops on x86.
> 
> Why not? Surely the JIT can fix it up? That is, suppose you were to have
> smp_rmb() as a eBPF instruction then the JIT (which knows what
> architecture it is targeting) can simply avoid emitting instructions for
> it.

I'm all for adding new instructions that solve real use cases.
imo bpf_spin_lock() is the first step in helping with concurrency.
At plumbers conference we agreed to add new sync_fetch_and_add()
and xchg() instructions. That's a second step.
smp_rmb/wmb/mb should be added as well.
JITs will patch them depending on architecture.

What I want to avoid is to define the whole execution ordering model upfront.
We cannot say that BPF ISA is weakly ordered like alpha.
Most of the bpf progs are written and running on x86. We shouldn't
twist bpf developer's arm by artificially relaxing memory model.
BPF memory model is equal to memory model of underlying architecture.
What we can do is to make it bpf progs a bit more portable with
smp_rmb instructions, but we must not force weak execution on the developer.

> Similarly; could something like this not also help with the spinlock
> thing? Use that generic test-and-set thing for the interpreter, but
> provide a better implementation in the JIT?

May be eventually. We can add cmpxchg insn, but the verifier still
doesn't support loops. We made a lot of progress in bounded loop research
over the last 2 years, but loops in bpf are still a year away.
We considered adding 'bpf_spin_lock' as a new instruction instead of helper call,
but that approach has a lot of negatives, so we went with the helper.


  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-26  0:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-24  4:13 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/9] introduce bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 18:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 18:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 23:42       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  0:05         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  1:22           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  1:46             ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:38               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:27                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  4:31                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:47                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 16:02                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25  4:11               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 16:18                 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 22:51                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 23:44                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-26  0:43                       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-26  0:59                         ` Jann Horn
2019-01-24 23:58     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  0:18       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25  2:49         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:29       ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25  2:34         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  2:44           ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25  2:57             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  8:38               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25  9:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 23:42         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:24           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:31           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28  8:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 20:49               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28  8:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:37             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  8:59               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:20                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25  9:59       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:09       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-26  0:17         ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2019-01-28  9:24           ` bpf memory model. Was: " Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:56             ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29  9:16               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30  2:32                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30  8:58                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 19:36                     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 18:11               ` Will Deacon
2019-01-30 18:36                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:51                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 21:05                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 22:57                       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-31 14:01                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-31 18:47                           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-02-01 14:05                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:50                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: add support for bpf_spin_lock to cgroup local storage Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 3/9] tools/bpf: sync include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 4/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 5/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 6/9] bpf: introduce BPF_F_LOCK flag Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24  4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] tools/bpf: sync uapi/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov

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=20190126001725.roqqfrpysyljqiqx@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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).