Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf, arm64: Emit A64_{ADD,SUB}_I when possible in emit_{lse,ll_sc}_atomic()

[Peilin Ye <yepeilin@google.com>]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 04:44:26PM +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > @@ -721,7 +727,7 @@ static int emit_ll_sc_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> >   	const s32 imm = insn->imm;
> >   	const s16 off = insn->off;
> >   	const bool isdw = BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW;
> > -	u8 reg;
> > +	u8 reg = dst;
> >   	s32 jmp_offset;
> >   	if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_ATOMIC) {
> > @@ -730,11 +736,15 @@ static int emit_ll_sc_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   	}
> > -	if (!off) {
> > -		reg = dst;
> > -	} else {
> > -		emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> > -		emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, dst), ctx);
> > +	if (off) {
> > +		if (is_addsub_imm(off)) {
> > +			emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tmp, reg, off), ctx);
> > +		} else if (is_addsub_imm(-off)) {
> > +			emit(A64_SUB_I(1, tmp, reg, -off), ctx);
> > +		} else {
> > +			emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> > +			emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, reg), ctx);
> > +		}
> >   		reg = tmp;
> >   	}
> 
> Thanks, this looks good to me, but we now have serveral repetitive code
> snippets like this. It would be better to refactor them into a common
> function.

Sure!  I will do that in v2.

Thanks,
Peilin Ye