From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
To: <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<daniel@iogearbox.net>, <kafai@fb.com>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
<kuniyu@amazon.com>, <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Track aligned st store as imprecise spilled registers
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:54:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240110175453.36889-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240110051348.2737007-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:13:48 -0800
> With patch set [1], precision backtracing supports register spill/fill
> to/from the stack. The patch [2] allows initial imprecise register spill
> with content 0. This is a common case for cpuv3 and lower for
> initializing the stack variables with pattern
> r1 = 0
> *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = r1
> and the [2] has demonstrated good verification improvement.
>
> For cpuv4, the initialization could be
> *(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0
> The current verifier marks the r10-8 contents with STACK_ZERO.
> Similar to [2], let us permit the above insn to behave like
> imprecise register spill which can reduce number of verified states.
> The change is in function check_stack_write_fixed_off().
>
> Before this patch, spilled zero will be marked as STACK_ZERO
> which can provide precise values. In check_stack_write_var_off(),
> STACK_ZERO will be maintained if writing a const zero
> so later it can provide precise values if needed.
>
> The above handling of '*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0' as a spill
> will have issues in check_stack_write_var_off() as the spill
> will be converted to STACK_MISC and the precise value 0
> is lost. To fix this issue, if the spill slots with const
> zero and the BPF_ST write also with const zero, the spill slots
> are preserved, which can later provide precise values
> if needed. Without the change in check_stack_write_var_off(),
> the test_verifier subtest 'BPF_ST_MEM stack imm zero, variable offset'
> will fail.
>
> I checked cpuv3 and cpuv4 with and without this patch with veristat.
> There is no state change for cpuv3 since '*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0'
> is only generated with cpuv4.
>
> For cpuv4:
> $ ../veristat -C old.cpuv4.csv new.cpuv4.csv -e file,prog,insns,states -f 'insns_diff!=0'
> File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)
> ------------------------------------------ ------------------- --------- --------- --------------- ---------- ---------- -------------
> local_storage_bench.bpf.linked3.o get_local 228 168 -60 (-26.32%) 17 14 -3 (-17.65%)
> pyperf600_bpf_loop.bpf.linked3.o on_event 6066 4889 -1177 (-19.40%) 403 321 -82 (-20.35%)
> test_cls_redirect.bpf.linked3.o cls_redirect 35483 35387 -96 (-0.27%) 2179 2177 -2 (-0.09%)
> test_l4lb_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 4494 4522 +28 (+0.62%) 217 219 +2 (+0.92%)
> test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress 1432 1455 +23 (+1.61%) 92 94 +2 (+2.17%)
> test_xdp_noinline.bpf.linked3.o balancer_ingress_v6 3462 3458 -4 (-0.12%) 216 216 +0 (+0.00%)
> verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.linked3.o widening 52 41 -11 (-21.15%) 4 3 -1 (-25.00%)
> xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_tc 12412 11719 -693 (-5.58%) 345 330 -15 (-4.35%)
> xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o syncookie_xdp 12478 11794 -684 (-5.48%) 346 331 -15 (-4.34%)
>
> test_l4lb_noinline and test_l4lb_noinline_dynptr has minor regression, but
> pyperf600_bpf_loop and local_storage_bench gets pretty good improvement.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-1-andrii@kernel.org/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231205184248.1502704-9-andrii@kernel.org/
>
> Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Tested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-10 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-10 5:13 [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Track aligned st store as imprecise spilled registers Yonghong Song
2024-01-10 5:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a selftest with not-8-byte aligned BPF_ST Yonghong Song
2024-01-10 17:54 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima [this message]
2024-01-12 20:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Track aligned st store as imprecise spilled registers Andrii Nakryiko
2024-01-12 20:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20240110175453.36889-1-kuniyu@amazon.com \
--to=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox