Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/4] bpf: add bpf_get_cpu_cycles kfunc

[Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>]

On 11/13/24 9:52 AM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 13/11/2024 17:38, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/8/24 4:41 PM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>> New kfunc to return ARCH-specific timecounter. For x86 BPF JIT converts
>>> it into rdtsc ordered call. Other architectures will get JIT
>>> implementation too if supported. The fallback is to
>>> __arch_get_hw_counter().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@meta.com>
>>> ---
>>> v4 -> v5:
>>> * use if instead of ifdef with IS_ENABLED
>>> v3 -> v4:
>>> * change name of the helper to bpf_get_cpu_cycles (Andrii)
>>> * Hide the helper behind CONFIG_GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY to avoid exposing
>>>    it on architectures which do not have vDSO functions and data
>>> * reduce the scope of check of inlined functions in verifier to only 2,
>>>    which are actually inlined.
>>> v2 -> v3:
>>> * change name of the helper to bpf_get_cpu_cycles_counter to explicitly
>>>    mention what counter it provides (Andrii)
>>> * move kfunc definition to bpf.h to use it in JIT.
>>> * introduce another kfunc to convert cycles into nanoseconds as more
>>>    meaningful time units for generic tracing use case (Andrii)
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>> * Fix incorrect function return value type to u64
>>> * Introduce bpf_jit_inlines_kfunc_call() and use it in
>>>    mark_fastcall_pattern_for_call() to avoid clobbering in case of
>>>    running programs with no JIT (Eduard)
>>> * Avoid rewriting instruction and check function pointer directly
>>>    in JIT (Alexei)
>>> * Change includes to fix compile issues on non x86 architectures
>>> ---
>>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c   | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>   include/linux/bpf.h           |  5 +++++
>>>   include/linux/filter.h        |  1 +
>>>   kernel/bpf/core.c             | 11 +++++++++++
>>>   kernel/bpf/helpers.c          | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>   kernel/bpf/verifier.c         | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   7 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> index 06b080b61aa5..4f78ed93ee7f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> @@ -2126,6 +2126,26 @@ st:            if (is_imm8(insn->off))
>>>           case BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL: {
>>>               u8 *ip = image + addrs[i - 1];
>>> +            if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL &&
>>> +                imm32 == BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_get_cpu_cycles)) {
>>> +                /* Save RDX because RDTSC will use EDX:EAX to 
>>> return u64 */
>>> +                emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, AUX_REG, BPF_REG_3);
>>> +                if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC))
>>> +                    EMIT_LFENCE();
>>> +                EMIT2(0x0F, 0x31);
>>> +
>>> +                /* shl RDX, 32 */
>>> +                maybe_emit_1mod(&prog, BPF_REG_3, true);
>>> +                EMIT3(0xC1, add_1reg(0xE0, BPF_REG_3), 32);
>>> +                /* or RAX, RDX */
>>> +                maybe_emit_mod(&prog, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, true);
>>> +                EMIT2(0x09, add_2reg(0xC0, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3));
>>> +                /* restore RDX from R11 */
>>> +                emit_mov_reg(&prog, true, BPF_REG_3, AUX_REG);
>>> +
>>> +                break;
>>> +            }
>>> +
>>>               func = (u8 *) __bpf_call_base + imm32;
>>>               if (tail_call_reachable) {
>>> LOAD_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(bpf_prog->aux->stack_depth);
>>> @@ -3652,3 +3672,11 @@ u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>>>   {
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>> +
>>> +/* x86-64 JIT can inline kfunc */
>>> +bool bpf_jit_inlines_kfunc_call(s32 imm)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (imm == BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_get_cpu_cycles))
>>> +        return true;
>>> +    return false;
>>> +}
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/x86/net/ 
>>> bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>> index de0f9e5f9f73..e6097a371b69 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c
>>> @@ -2094,6 +2094,13 @@ static int do_jit(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog, 
>>> int *addrs, u8 *image,
>>>               if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL) {
>>>                   int err;
>>> +                if (imm32 == BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_get_cpu_cycles)) {
>>> +                    if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LFENCE_RDTSC))
>>> +                        EMIT3(0x0F, 0xAE, 0xE8);
>>> +                    EMIT2(0x0F, 0x31);
>>> +                    break;
>>> +                }
>>> +
>>>                   err = emit_kfunc_call(bpf_prog,
>>>                                 image + addrs[i],
>>>                                 insn, &prog);
>>> @@ -2621,3 +2628,10 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
>>>   {
>>>       return true;
>>>   }
>>> +
>>> +bool bpf_jit_inlines_kfunc_call(s32 imm)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (imm == BPF_CALL_IMM(bpf_get_cpu_cycles))
>>> +        return true;
>>> +    return false;
>>> +}
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> index 395221e53832..5c6c0383ebf4 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
>>>   #include <linux/btf_ids.h>
>>>   #include <linux/bpf_mem_alloc.h>
>>>   #include <linux/kasan.h>
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY)
>>> +#include <vdso/datapage.h>
>>> +#endif
>>>   #include "../../lib/kstrtox.h"
>>> @@ -3023,6 +3026,13 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_copy_from_user_str(void 
>>> *dst, u32 dst__sz, const void __user
>>>       return ret + 1;
>>>   }
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY)
>>> +__bpf_kfunc u64 bpf_get_cpu_cycles(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    return __arch_get_hw_counter(1, NULL);
>>
>> Some comment to explain what '1' mean in the above?
>
> That's arch-specific value which translates to HW implemented counter on
> all architectures which have vDSO gettimeofday() implementation.
>
> For x86 it translates to VDSO_CLOCKMODE_TSC, while for aarch64/RISC-V
> it's VDSO_CLOCKMODE_ARCHTIMER. Actually, for RISC-V the value of the
> first parameter doesn't matter at all, for aarch64 it should be 0.
> The only arch which is more strict about this parameter is x86, but it
> has it's own special name...

So in the future, if we want add aarch64 support or other architecture,
the argument could be different, right?

I think we should avoid to have arch specific control in helpers.c.
How about we define a __weak func like bpf_arch_get_hw_counter() so we
have

__bpf_kfunc u64 bpf_get_cpu_cycles(void)
{
	return bpf_arch_get_hw_counter();
}

Each arch can implement their own bpf_arch_get_hw_counter().
Do you think this will make more sense? This should not impact jit inlining
of this kfunc.

>
>>
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>>   __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
>>>   BTF_KFUNCS_START(generic_btf_ids)
>>> @@ -3115,6 +3125,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_kmem_cache)
>>>   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_new, KF_ITER_NEW | 
>>> KF_SLEEPABLE)
>>>   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | 
>>> KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPABLE)
>>>   BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | 
>>> KF_SLEEPABLE)
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_GETTIMEOFDAY)
>>> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_cpu_cycles, KF_FASTCALL)
>>> +#endif
>>>   BTF_KFUNCS_END(common_btf_ids)
>>>   static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set common_kfunc_set = {
>> [...]
>