Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] riscv, bpf: Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls

From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
	Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>,
	Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] riscv, bpf: Mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:59:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lecqobyb.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230919035711.3297256-5-pulehui@huaweicloud.com>

Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:

> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>
> In the current RV64 JIT, if we just don't initialize the TCC in subprog,
> the TCC can be propagated from the parent process to the subprocess, but
> the TCC of the parent process cannot be restored when the subprocess
> exits. Since the RV64 TCC is initialized before saving the callee saved
> registers into the stack, we cannot use the callee saved register to
> pass the TCC, otherwise the original value of the callee saved register
> will be destroyed. So we implemented mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls
> similar to x86_64, i.e. using a non-callee saved register to transfer
> the TCC between functions, and saving that register to the stack to
> protect the TCC value. At the same time, we also consider the scenario
> of mixing trampoline.

Hi!

The RISC-V JIT tries to minimize the stack usage, e.g. it doesn't have a
fixed pro/epilogue like some of the other JITs. I think we can do better
here, so that the pass-TCC-via-register can be used, and the additional
stack access can be avoided.

Today, the TCC is passed via a register (a6) and can be viewed as a
"state" variable/transparent argument/return value. As you point out, we
loose this when we do a call. On (any) calls we move the TCC to a
callee-saved register.

WDYT about the following scheme:

1 Pickup the arm64 bpf2bpf/tailmix mechanism of just clearing the TCC
  for the main program.
2 For BPF helper calls, move TCC to s6, perform the call, and restore
  a6. Dito for kfunc calls (BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL).
3 For all other calls, a6 is passed transparently.

For 2 bpf_jit_get_func_addr() can be used to determine if the callee is
a BPF helper or not.

In summary; Determine in the JIT if we're leaving BPF-land, and need to
move the TCC to a callee-saved reg, or not, and save us a bunch of stack
store/loads.

Björn

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv