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

[Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>]

On 12/11/2024 22:27, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 2:20 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 13:53 -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 21:39 +0000, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> +                       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);
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: The default implementation of this kfunc uses __arch_get_hw_counter(),
>>>>>         which is implemented as `(u64)rdtsc_ordered() & S64_MAX`.
>>>>>         Here we don't do `& S64_MAX`.
>>>>>         The masking in __arch_get_hw_counter() was added by this commit:
>>>>>         77750f78b0b3 ("x86/vdso: Fix gettimeofday masking").
>>>>
>>>> I think we already discussed it with Alexey in v1, we don't really need
>>>> any masking here for BPF case. We can use values provided by CPU
>>>> directly. It will never happen that within one BPF program we will have
>>>> inlined and non-inlined implementation of this helper, hence the values
>>>> to compare will be of the same source.
>>>>
>>>>>         Also, the default implementation does not issue `lfence`.
>>>>>         Not sure if this makes any real-world difference.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it actually does. rdtsc_ordered is translated into `lfence; rdtsc`
>>>> or `rdtscp` (which is rdtsc + lfence + u32 cookie) depending on the cpu
>>>> features.
>>>
>>> I see the following disassembly:
>>>
>>> 0000000000008980 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles>:
>>> ; {
>>>      8980: f3 0f 1e fa                   endbr64
>>>      8984: e8 00 00 00 00                callq   0x8989 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles+0x9>
>>>                  0000000000008985:  R_X86_64_PLT32       __fentry__-0x4
>>> ;       asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE_2("rdtsc",
>>>      8989: 0f 31                         rdtsc
>>>      898b: 90                            nop
>>>      898c: 90                            nop
>>>      898d: 90                            nop
>>> ;       return EAX_EDX_VAL(val, low, high);
>>>      898e: 48 c1 e2 20                   shlq    $0x20, %rdx
>>>      8992: 48 09 d0                      orq     %rdx, %rax
>>>      8995: 48 b9 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 7f movabsq $0x7fffffffffffffff, %rcx # imm = 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
>>> ;               return (u64)rdtsc_ordered() & S64_MAX;
>>>      899f: 48 21 c8                      andq    %rcx, %rax
>>> ;       return __arch_get_hw_counter(1, NULL);
>>>      89a2: 2e e9 00 00 00 00             jmp     0x89a8 <bpf_get_cpu_cycles+0x28>
>>>
>>> Is it patched when kernel is loaded to replace nops with lfence?
>>> By real-world difference I meant difference between default
>>> implementation and inlined assembly.
>>
>> Talked with Vadim off-list, he explained that 'rttsc nop nop nop' is
>> indeed patched at kernel load. Regarding S64_MAX patching we just hope
>> this should never be an issue for BPF use-case.
>> So, no more questions from my side.
> 
> since s64 question came up twice it should be a comment.

sure, will do it.

> 
> nop nop as well.

do you mean why there are nop;nop instructions in the kernel's assembly?

> 
> pw-bot: cr