All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	"Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
	"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
	"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_next() kfunc
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 13:36:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260729203633.213973-4-puranjay@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260729203633.213973-1-puranjay@kernel.org>

bpf_iter_num_next() is called on every iteration of a bpf_for() loop and
is the hot path of the numeric open-coded iterator. It only advances the
on-stack iterator state and returns a pointer to it, so open-coding it in
the verifier removes a function call from each loop iteration.

Inline it in bpf_fixup_kfunc_call() by replacing the call with an
equivalent instruction sequence. R1 holds the pointer to the on-stack
bpf_iter_num; the returned pointer to s->cur is R1 itself since s->cur is
the first member.

s->cur and s->end are int, so the kfunc's s->cur + 1 >= s->end test is a
signed 32-bit comparison of (s->cur + 1) against s->end, with s->cur + 1
computed as a 32-bit int. Sign-extending both sides of a comparison of
two int values does not change its result, so the inlined code uses a
32-bit compare and needs no sign extension.

Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 7400515ae1296..3a3d096f3966e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19810,6 +19810,34 @@ static int inline_bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
 	return i;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Inline bpf_iter_num_next(). R1 holds the pointer to the iterator. Keep in sync with the
+ * kfunc in kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c.
+ */
+static int inline_bpf_iter_num_next(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
+{
+	int i = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * s->cur and s->end are int, so the kfunc's s->cur + 1 >= s->end check is a signed 32-bit
+	 * comparison of (s->cur + 1) against s->end and needs no sign extension.
+	 */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 1);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 4);
+	/* if ((s32)(s->cur + 1) >= (s32)s->end) goto done; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_JMP32_REG(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 3);
+	/* s->cur++; return &s->cur; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_JMP_A(2);
+	/* done: s->cur = s->end = 0; return NULL; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0);
+
+	return i;
+}
+
 int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		     struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, int insn_idx, int *cnt)
 {
@@ -19941,6 +19969,8 @@ int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		*cnt = 6;
 	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_iter_num_new]) {
 		*cnt = inline_bpf_iter_num_new(insn_buf);
+	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_iter_num_next]) {
+		*cnt = inline_bpf_iter_num_next(insn_buf);
 	}
 
 	if (env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].arg_prog) {
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-07-29 20:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-29 20:36 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] bpf: Inline the numeric open-coded iterator kfuncs Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/6] bpf: Correct the overflow check comment in bpf_iter_num_next() Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:49   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-29 21:32   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_new() kfunc Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_destroy() as a no-op Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/6] selftests/bpf: Verify inlined numeric iterator shape with __xlated Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_for() benchmark Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 21:50   ` bot+bpf-ci

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=20260729203633.213973-4-puranjay@kernel.org \
    --to=puranjay@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.