Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/8] arm32, bpf: add support for sign-extension load instruction

[Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 05 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

[...]
>> +/* dst = *(signed size*)(src + off) */
>> +static inline void emit_ldsx_r(const s8 dst[], const s8 src,
>> +			       s16 off, struct jit_ctx *ctx, const u8 sz){
>> +	const s8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
>> +	const s8 *rd = is_stacked(dst_lo) ? tmp : dst;
>> +	s8 rm = src;
>> +
>> +	if (!is_ldst_imm8(off, sz)) {
>> +		emit_a32_mov_i(tmp[0], off, ctx);
>> +		emit(ARM_ADD_R(tmp[0], tmp[0], src), ctx);
>
> Hmm. This looks inefficient when "off" is able to fit in an immediate.
> Please try:
>
> 	int add_off;
>
> 	if (!is_ldst_imm8(off, sz)) {
> 		add_off = imm8m(off);
> 		if (add_off > 0) {
> 			emit(ARM_ADD_I(tmp[0], src, add_off), ctx);
> 			rm = tmp[0];
> 		} else {
> 			emit_a32_mov_i(tmp[0], off, ctx);
> 			emit(ARM_ADD_R(tmp[0], tmp[0], src), ctx);
> 			rm = tmp[0];
> 		}
> 		off = 0;
>> +	} else if (rd[1] == rm) {
>> +		emit(ARM_MOV_R(tmp[0], rm), ctx);
>> +		rm = tmp[0];
>
> Why do you need this? rd and rm can be the same for LDRS[BH].

I agree that this is not required, will remove in the next version.
Will also use the suggested optimization for immediate.

>> +	}
>> +	switch (sz) {
>> +	case BPF_B:
>> +		/* Load a Byte with sign extension*/
>> +		emit(ARM_LDRSB_I(rd[1], rm, off), ctx);
>> +		/* Carry the sign extension to upper 32 bits */
>> +		emit(ARM_ASR_I(rd[0], rd[1], 31), ctx);
>> +		break;
>> +	case BPF_H:
>> +		/* Load a HalfWord with sign extension*/
>> +		emit(ARM_LDRSH_I(rd[1], rm, off), ctx);
>> +		/* Carry the sign extension to upper 32 bits */
>> +		emit(ARM_ASR_I(rd[0], rd[1], 31), ctx);
>> +		break;
>> +	case BPF_W:
>> +		/* Load a Word*/
>> +		emit(ARM_LDR_I(rd[1], rm, off), ctx);
>> +		/* Carry the sign extension to upper 32 bits */
>> +		emit(ARM_ASR_I(rd[0], rd[1], 31), ctx);
>
> The last instruction extending to the upper 32 bits is the same in each
> of these cases, so is there any reason not to do it outside the switch
> statement?

Will move it outside in the next version.


Thanks,
Puranjay