From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>,
"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/5] bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 03:00:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200714010045.GB2435@ranger.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQ+AD0T_xqwk-fhoWV25iANs-FMCMVnn2-PALDxdODfepA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:25:20PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Of course you are right.
> > pop+nop+push is incorrect.
> >
> > How about the following instead:
> > - during JIT:
> > emit_jump(to_skip_below) <- poke->tailcall_bypass
That's the jump to the instruction right after the poke->tailcall_target.
> > pop_callee_regs
> > emit_jump(to_tailcall_target) <- poke->tailcall_target
During JIT there's no tailcall_target so this will be nop5, right?
> >
> > - Transition from one target to another:
> > text_poke(poke->tailcall_target, MOD_JMP, old_jmp, new_jmp)
> > if (new_jmp != NULL)
> > text_poke(poke->tailcall_bypass, MOD jmp into nop);
> > else
> > text_poke(poke->tailcall_bypass, MOD nop into jmp);
>
> One more correction. I meant:
>
> if (new_jmp != NULL) {
> text_poke(poke->tailcall_target, MOD_JMP, old_jmp, new_jmp)
Problem with having the old_jmp here is that you could have the
tailcall_target removed followed by the new program being inserted. So for
that case old_jmp is NULL but we decided to not poke the
poke->tailcall_target when removing the program, only the tailcall_bypass
is poked back to jmp from nop. IOW old_jmp is not equal to what
poke->tailcall_target currently stores. This means that
bpf_arch_text_poke() would not be successful for this update and that is
the reason of faking it in this patch.
> text_poke(poke->tailcall_bypass, MOD jmp into nop);
> } else {
> text_poke(poke->tailcall_bypass, MOD nop into jmp);
> }
I think that's what we currently (mostly) have. map_poke_run() is skipping
the poke of poke->tailcall_target if new bpf_prog is NULL, just like
you're proposing above. Of course I can rename the members in poke
descriptor to names you're suggesting. I also assume that by text_poke you
meant the bpf_arch_text_poke?
I've been able to hide the nop5 detection within the bpf_arch_text_poke so
map_poke_run() is arch-independent in that approach. My feeling is that
we don't need the old bpf_prog at all.
Some bits might change here due to the jump target alignment that I'm
trying to introduce.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-14 1:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-02 13:49 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/5] bpf: tailcalls in BPF subprograms Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-02 13:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf, x64: use %rcx instead of %rax for tail call retpolines Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-02 13:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/5] bpf: allow for tailcalls in BPF subprograms Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-02 13:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 3/5] bpf: propagate poke descriptors to subprograms Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-02 13:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 4/5] bpf, x64: rework pro/epilogue and tailcall handling in JIT Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-10 23:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-11 3:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-11 3:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-14 1:00 ` Maciej Fijalkowski [this message]
2020-07-14 3:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-14 20:50 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-14 22:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-02 13:49 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests: bpf: add dummy prog for bpf2bpf with tailcall Maciej Fijalkowski
2020-07-11 0:10 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/5] bpf: tailcalls in BPF subprograms Alexei Starovoitov
2020-07-14 0:22 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
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=20200714010045.GB2435@ranger.igk.intel.com \
--to=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.topel@intel.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).