From patchwork Tue Jan 28 02:11:45 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Palmer Dabbelt X-Patchwork-Id: 11353479 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC9B139A for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 02:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C800D2173E for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 02:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="QaAh+868"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="t6Fkbs2B" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C800D2173E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patchwork-linux-arm=patchwork.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:References:In-Reply-To:To:From: MIME-Version:Message-Id:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=5QXX0sCYWdYdF3NLMbXFEwAwfdg/la4uyOyPizPinXg=; b=QaAh+868Q1rZhw ue96j9E4P5HTrgSNKbsCAdMRdk+D4EmHLrRsIoytIjdDJBiHKmcuIyxcpIEA3Zycfh3Ob1qICPSPF S8GYPAExgXecFt6IE6otzsH6UmZot75J9vz00seAaJCDGB+cSMirNbmzgtSQKcwoOQfqR2A7NHomu SS012fYK4MqFBpEvabrC5R2pxrBaxJFD3hthrq3I5vKlR7SUV2pUkIr7P6eee8aG7ATjnzJkuSsrf eGr/l6bkCW+ngmtgcbqoHy5/JKlkwK38Al+flZjWZnNDdmQhnsbB/t6HTPMML/FkVX9ajFWLVVc38 nt9Id+Y8mrNmnTRkls9w==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iwGQ9-00021S-Ok; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 02:16:05 +0000 Received: from mail-pj1-x1044.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::1044]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iwGPE-0000DJ-9F for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 02:15:10 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-x1044.google.com with SMTP id m13so315830pjb.2 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:15:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:cc :from:to:in-reply-to:references; bh=LUiKWI3Cf+9+n0Mf0T0uSDtpI14DkFl6R/zPz6oE4kA=; b=t6Fkbs2B6XQQ1FJjHeJszTkGjc450EaIRq1KZfmbn8O4NYMZcq6AXMS7pmHbUboObC +++s+jeLdsA6RQB08P9Q5Ack/z09JhMpcwAH9ll/D/MNh2PF/l8bN+H59x2KdWIZQaGJ V6rLY45e1nmA4dzti6zKLzfbfSQH01wh1Pq+jqMqsvZxpHPcSUIN8yopf38iePTDe4Fn PnNN2/5p6w6AcizSaS4T/xDwCmkQr+gZ6sexRbfAK34zFGsth0Z8GT9lZrcVKfKxscsF FNGp79tHt13MmqPXpQkiJlgMycGe4X09ATmdUeh59o7i1ed82t9JibgA5r1Fh0RysWRj 6HTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:to:in-reply-to:references; bh=LUiKWI3Cf+9+n0Mf0T0uSDtpI14DkFl6R/zPz6oE4kA=; b=gtryZgIs8fnYzlaygoloxXlbWjK/h6JCWqQSSTLP4H7fKPxpHG4l384RUeLH29hHJC ny+5bg7xSCC1D2a/NwR5rRz7M0NxpoU0gBz4NW5EyIh9B8ahnbVsD5l7C6FqLjUHjf+g N2EoKa7o5/fDVqIAz2eY2BToPo0aMrk8vcvL/8USI42+yUrTq2nkamjncj2wqMBfhclV DSqbhUxHS+yP07fBK6/4ckIKTsG2hobQPQi0XUa1qXsU/sukYpQHUnL+2xLXneMfgWoM nkzThKRONfTM7UgWUnquqynOZ5hHIKD+E/HLZqgGA2sWhCyeX/jpo1CKab8Fqh1s32Wh EJKA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/MPTEw14e5S/63i7qCLHgeX4OUi+95lfM8+BFM9LDgJa+rS1r LxnHUS4/E9Vuc9BN0eabPku7Ag== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxlXoEawlGrjKe7Dg0dTNaImpBzNfwMgpu5Qd3tYpex5PzlG+tN2FelRoSSzPaUPamCbr5Lgw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a09:: with SMTP id v9mr19976280plp.341.1580177704696; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([216.9.110.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o17sm393828pjq.1.2020.01.27.18.15.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:15:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: bpf: Elide some moves to a0 after calls Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:11:45 -0800 Message-Id: <20200128021145.36774-5-palmerdabbelt@google.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Palmer Dabbelt To: Bjorn Topel In-Reply-To: <20200128021145.36774-1-palmerdabbelt@google.com> References: <20200128021145.36774-1-palmerdabbelt@google.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200127_181508_746339_085B5BF3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.90 ) X-Spam-Score: -15.7 (---------------) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.4.3 on bombadil.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-15.7 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -7.5 USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL From: address is in the default SPF white-list -7.5 USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL From: address is in the default DKIM white-list -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.5 ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH Env and Hdr From used in default SPF WL Match -0.0 DKIMWL_WL_MED DKIMwl.org - Medium sender X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: songliubraving@fb.com, andriin@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, kernel-team@android.com, zlim.lnx@gmail.com, shuah@kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt , ast@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, yhs@fb.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patchwork-linux-arm=patchwork.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On arm64, the BPF function ABI doesn't match the C function ABI. Specifically, arm64 encodes calls as `a0 = f(a0, a1, ...)` while BPF encodes calls as `BPF_REG_0 = f(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, ...)`. This discrepancy results in function calls being encoded as a two operations sequence that first does a C ABI calls and then moves the return register into the right place. This results in one extra instruction for every function call. This patch adds an optimization to the arm64 BPF JIT backend that aims to avoid some of these moves. I've done no benchmarking to determine if this is correct. I ran the BPF selftests before and after the change on arm64 in QEMU and found that I had a single failure both before and after. I'm not at all confident this code actually works as it's my first time doing anything with both ARM64 and BPF and I didn't even open the documentation for either of these. I was particularly surprised that the code didn't fail any tests -- I was kind of assuming this would fail the tests, get put on the backburner, sit long enough for me to stop caring, and then get deleted. Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt --- arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c index fba5b1b00cd7..48d900cc7258 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c @@ -58,10 +58,14 @@ struct jit_ctx { int *offset; __le32 *image; u32 stack_size; + int reg0_in_reg1; }; static inline int bpf2a64(struct jit_ctx *ctx, int bpf_reg) { + if (ctx->reg0_in_reg1 && bpf_reg == BPF_REG_0) + bpf_reg = BPF_REG_1; + return bpf2a64_default[bpf_reg]; } @@ -338,6 +342,47 @@ static void build_epilogue(struct jit_ctx *ctx) emit(A64_RET(A64_LR), ctx); } +static int dead_register(const struct jit_ctx *ctx, int offset, int bpf_reg) +{ + const struct bpf_prog *prog = ctx->prog; + int i; + + for (i = offset; i < prog->len; ++i) { + const struct bpf_insn *insn = &prog->insnsi[i]; + const u8 code = insn->code; + const u8 bpf_dst = insn->dst_reg; + const u8 bpf_src = insn->src_reg; + const int writes_dst = !((code & BPF_ST) || (code & BPF_STX) + || (code & BPF_JMP32) || (code & BPF_JMP)); + const int reads_dst = !((code & BPF_LD)); + const int reads_src = true; + + /* Calls are a bit special in that they clobber a bunch of regisers. */ + if ((code & (BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL)) || (code & (BPF_JMP | BPF_TAIL_CALL))) + if ((bpf_reg >= BPF_REG_0) && (bpf_reg <= BPF_REG_5)) + return false; + + /* Registers that are read before they're written are alive. + * Most opcodes are of the form DST = DEST op SRC, but there + * are some exceptions.*/ + if (bpf_src == bpf_reg && reads_src) + return false; + + if (bpf_dst == bpf_reg && reads_dst) + return false; + + if (bpf_dst == bpf_reg && writes_dst) + return true; + + /* Most BPF instructions are 8 bits long, but some ar 16 bits + * long. */ + if (code & (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW)) + ++i; + } + + return true; +} + /* JITs an eBPF instruction. * Returns: * 0 - successfully JITed an 8-byte eBPF instruction. @@ -348,7 +393,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, bool extra_pass) { const u8 code = insn->code; - const u8 dstw = bpf2a64(ctx, insn->dst_reg); + u8 dstw; const u8 dstr = bpf2a64(ctx, insn->dst_reg); const u8 src = bpf2a64(ctx, insn->src_reg); const u8 tmp = bpf2a64(ctx, TMP_REG_1); @@ -374,6 +419,27 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, #define check_imm19(imm) check_imm(19, imm) #define check_imm26(imm) check_imm(26, imm) + /* Handle BPF_REG_0, which may be in the wrong place because the ARM64 + * ABI doesn't match the BPF ABI for function calls. */ + if (ctx->reg0_in_reg1) { + /* If we're writing BPF_REG_0 then we don't need to do any + * extra work to get the registers back in their correct + * locations. */ + if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_0) + ctx->reg0_in_reg1 = false; + + /* If we're writing to BPF_REG_1 then we need to save BPF_REG_0 + * into the correct location if it's still alive, as otherwise + * it will be clobbered. */ + if (insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_1) { + if (!dead_register(ctx, off + 1, BPF_REG_0)) + emit(A64_MOV(1, A64_R(7), A64_R(0)), ctx); + ctx->reg0_in_reg1 = false; + } + } + + dstw = bpf2a64(ctx, insn->dst_reg); + switch (code) { /* dst = src */ case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X: @@ -640,7 +706,6 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, /* function call */ case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL: { - const u8 r0 = bpf2a64(ctx, BPF_REG_0); bool func_addr_fixed; u64 func_addr; int ret; @@ -651,7 +716,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx, return ret; emit_addr_mov_i64(tmp, func_addr, ctx); emit(A64_BLR(tmp), ctx); - emit(A64_MOV(1, r0, A64_R(0)), ctx); + ctx->reg0_in_reg1 = true; break; } /* tail call */