[PATCH v2 10/21] arm64: KVM: Add patchable function selector

[christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:19:22PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/12/15 11:53, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:47:43AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 02/12/15 09:27, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:51:00PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> On 01/12/15 15:39, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 06:50:04PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>>>> KVM so far relies on code patching, and is likely to use it more
> >>>>>> in the future. The main issue is that our alternative system works
> >>>>>> at the instruction level, while we'd like to have alternatives at
> >>>>>> the function level.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In order to cope with this, add the "hyp_alternate_select" macro that
> >>>>>> outputs a brief sequence of code that in turn can be patched, allowing
> >>>>>> al alternative function to be selected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> s/al/an/ ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
> >>>>>> index 7ac8e11..f0427ee 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
> >>>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,22 @@
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>  #define kern_hyp_va(v) (typeof(v))((unsigned long)v & HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_MASK)
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>> + * Generates patchable code sequences that are used to switch between
> >>>>>> + * two implementations of a function, depending on the availability of
> >>>>>> + * a feature.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This looks right to me, but I'm a bit unclear what the types of this is
> >>>>> and how to use it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are orig and alt function pointers and cond is a CONFIG_FOO ?  fname is
> >>>>> a symbol, which is defined as a prototype somewhere and then implemented
> >>>>> here, or?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps a Usage: part of the docs would be helpful.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about:
> >>>>
> >>>> @fname: a symbol name that will be defined as a function returning a
> >>>> function pointer whose type will match @orig and @alt
> >>>> @orig: A pointer to the default function, as returned by @fname when
> >>>> @cond doesn't hold
> >>>> @alt: A pointer to the alternate function, as returned by @fname when
> >>>> @cond holds
> >>>> @cond: a CPU feature (as described in asm/cpufeature.h)
> >>>
> >>> looks good.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +#define hyp_alternate_select(fname, orig, alt, cond)			\
> >>>>>> +typeof(orig) * __hyp_text fname(void)					\
> >>>>>> +{									\
> >>>>>> +	typeof(alt) *val = orig;					\
> >>>>>> +	asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("nop		\n",			\
> >>>>>> +				 "mov	%0, %1	\n",			\
> >>>>>> +				 cond)					\
> >>>>>> +		     : "+r" (val) : "r" (alt));				\
> >>>>>> +	return val;							\
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>  void __vgic_v2_save_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>>>>>  void __vgic_v2_restore_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> 2.1.4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't thought much about how all of this is implemented, but from my
> >>>>> point of views the ideal situation would be something like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> void foo(int a, int b)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> 	ALTERNATIVE_IF_NOT CONFIG_BAR
> >>>>> 	foo_legacy(a, b);
> >>>>> 	ALTERNATIVE_ELSE
> >>>>> 	foo_new(a, b);
> >>>>> 	ALTERNATIVE_END
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I realize this may be impossible because the C code could implement all
> >>>>> sort of fun stuff around the actual function calls, but would there be
> >>>>> some way to annotate the functions and find the actual branch statement
> >>>>> and change the target?
> >>>>
> >>>> The main issue is that C doesn't give you any access to the branch
> >>>> function itself, except for the asm-goto statements. It also makes it
> >>>> very hard to preserve the return type. For your idea to work, we'd need
> >>>> some support in the compiler itself. I'm sure that it is doable, just
> >>>> not by me! ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Not by me either, I'm just asking stupid questions - as always.
> >>
> >> I don't find that stupid. Asking that kind of stuff is useful to put
> >> things in perspective.
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why I've ended up creating something that returns a function
> >>>> *pointer*, because that's something that exists in the language (no new
> >>>> concept). I simply made sure I could return it at minimal cost.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't have a problem with this either.  I'm curious though, how much
> >>> of a performance improvement (and why) we get from doing this as opposed
> >>> to a simple if-statement?
> >>
> >> An if statement will involve fetching some configuration from memory.
> >> You can do that, but you are going to waste a cache line and memory
> >> bandwidth (both which are scarce resources) for something that never
> >> ever changes over the life of the system. These things tend to accumulate.
> > 
> > Sure, but won't you be fetching the function pointer from memory anyway?
> 
> No, and that's the whole point of this patch: the function pointers are
> loaded into registers as PC-relative constants (adrp+add), the selection
> being done by a mov or a nop. For example:
> 
> ffffffc0007f1f60:       90000001        adrp    x1, ffffffc0007f1000
> ffffffc0007f1f64:       90000000        adrp    x0, ffffffc0007f1000
> ffffffc0007f1f68:       91036021        add     x1, x1, #0xd8
> ffffffc0007f1f6c:       910b0000        add     x0, x0, #0x2c0
> ffffffc0007f1f70:       d503201f        nop
> ffffffc0007f1f74:       aa1303e0        mov     x0, x19
> ffffffc0007f1f78:       d63f0020        blr     x1

right, looking at the disassembly was a good idea.

> 
> For the default condition (the above code), the CPU is likely to discard
> the second adrp+add (because of the mov x0, x19). For the alternate, the
> nop is replaced by a "mov x1, x0", which makes the first adrp+add
> irrelevant (it will be eliminated in the pipeline of any decent CPU).
> 
> While this has a cost in terms of instruction footprint, the branch
> predictor is quickly going to find out where we're branching. We also
> avoid fetching both from the I and D sides, which could kill the branch
> predictor if not speculated in time. In the end, we get something that
> is a lot more predictable, even for simpler CPU designs.
> 

consider me convinced.  Thanks for the in-depth!

-Christoffer