From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
To: Luke Nelson <lukenels@cs.washington.edu>
Cc: "Luke Nelson" <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>,
"Xi Wang" <xi.wang@gmail.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@sifive.com>,
"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] RV32G eBPF JIT
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:45:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h88f9bm3.fsf@netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190621225938.27030-1-lukenels@cs.washington.edu>
Luke Nelson writes:
> From: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
>
> This is an eBPF JIT for RV32G, adapted from the JIT for RV64G.
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> It passes 359 out of 378 tests in test_bpf.ko. The failing tests are
> features that are not supported right now:
> - ALU64 DIV/MOD:
> These require loops to emulate on 32-bit hardware,
> and are not supported on other 32-bit JITs like
> ARM32.
> - BPF_XADD | BPF_DW:
> RV32G does not have atomic instructions for operating
> on double words. This is similar to ARM32.
> - Tail calls:
> I'm working on adding support for these now, but couldn't
> find any test cases that use them. What's the best way
> of testing tail call code?
> - Far branches
> These are not supported in RV64G either.
>
> There are two main changes required for this to work compared to the
> RV64 JIT.
>
> First, eBPF registers are 64-bit, while RV32G registers are 32-bit.
> I take an approach similar to ARM32: most BPF registers map directly to
> 2 RISC-V registers, while some reside in stack scratch space and must
> be saved / restored when used.
>
> Second, many 64-bit ALU operations do not trivially map to 32-bit
> operations. Operations that move bits between high and low words, such
> as ADD, LSH, MUL, and others must emulate the 64-bit behavior in terms
> of 32-bit instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
> Cc: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/net/Makefile | 7 +-
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 1460 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 1467 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>
<snip>
> +static void rv32_bpf_put_reg32(const s8 *reg, const s8 *src,
> + struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
> +{
> + if (is_stacked(reg[1])) {
> + emit(rv_sw(RV_REG_FP, reg[1], src[1]), ctx);
> + emit(rv_sw(RV_REG_FP, reg[0], RV_REG_ZERO), ctx);
> + } else {
> + emit(rv_addi(reg[0], RV_REG_ZERO, 0), ctx);
> + }
> +}
> +
Looks to me 32-bit optimization is not enabled.
If you define bpf_jit_needs_zext to return true
bool bpf_jit_needs_zext(void)
{
return true;
}
Then you don't need to zero high 32-bit when writing 32-bit sub-register
and you just need to implement the explicit zero extension insn which is a
special variant of BPF_MOV. This can save quite a few instructions. RV64
and arches like arm has implemented this, please search
"aux->verifier_zext".
And there is a doc for this optimization:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/tree/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst#n168
Regards,
Jiong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-21 22:59 [RFC PATCH bpf-next] RV32G eBPF JIT Luke Nelson
2019-06-24 10:11 ` Björn Töpel
2019-06-26 23:20 ` Luke Nelson
2019-06-24 16:45 ` Jiong Wang [this message]
2019-06-25 20:26 ` Luke Nelson
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=87h88f9bm3.fsf@netronome.com \
--to=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luke.r.nels@gmail.com \
--cc=lukenels@cs.washington.edu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=xi.wang@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.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).