[PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Puranjay Mohan]

Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
JITs.

RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).

Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
offset to the destination register.

To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
used on Qemu:

Before:
glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s

After:
glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s

[1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef

Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
---
 arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
 #include <asm/patch.h>
 #include <asm/cfi.h>
+#include <asm/percpu.h>
 #include "bpf_jit.h"
 
 #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
@@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
 			emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
 			emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
 			break;
+		} else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
+			if (rd != rs)
+				emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+				/* Load current CPU number in T1 */
+				emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu), RV_REG_TP,
+					ctx);
+				/* << 3 because offsets are 8 bytes */
+				emit_slli(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 3, ctx);
+				/* Load address of __per_cpu_offset array in T2 */
+				emit_imm(RV_REG_T2, (u64)&__per_cpu_offset, ctx);
+				/* Add offset of current CPU to  __per_cpu_offset */
+				emit_add(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+				/* Load __per_cpu_offset[cpu] in T1 */
+				emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, 0, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+				/* Add the offset to Rd */
+				emit_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+#endif
 		}
 		if (imm == 1) {
 			/* Special mov32 for zext */
@@ -2038,3 +2057,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void)
 {
 	return true;
 }
+
+bool bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn(void)
+{
+	return true;
+}
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Björn Töpel]

Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> writes:

> Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
> data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
> users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
> internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
> JITs.
>
> RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
> are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
> the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
> tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
     ^
     k ;-)
> reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).
>
> Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
> cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
> offset to the destination register.

Just to clarify for readers; BPF programs are run with migrate disable,
which means that on RT we can be preempted, which means that per-cpu
operations are trickier (disabling interrupts/preemption).

However, this BPF instruction is about calculating the per-cpu address,
so the look up can be inlined.

It's not a per-cpu *operation*.

> To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
> used on Qemu:
>
> Before:
> glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
> arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
> hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s
>
> After:
> glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
> arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
> hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s
>
> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef
>
> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>  #include <asm/patch.h>
>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
> +#include <asm/percpu.h>
>  #include "bpf_jit.h"
>  
>  #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
> @@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>  			emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>  			emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>  			break;
> +		} else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
> +			if (rd != rs)
> +				emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +				/* Load current CPU number in T1 */
> +				emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu), RV_REG_TP,
> +					ctx);
> +				/* << 3 because offsets are 8 bytes */
> +				emit_slli(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 3, ctx);
> +				/* Load address of __per_cpu_offset array in T2 */
> +				emit_imm(RV_REG_T2, (u64)&__per_cpu_offset, ctx);

Did you try using emit_addr() here? I'd guess that'll be fewer
instructions, no?


Björn

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Puranjay Mohan]

Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> writes:

> Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
>> data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
>> users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
>> internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
>> JITs.
>>
>> RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
>> are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
>> the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
>> tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
>      ^
>      k ;-)

I need to start using some kind of spell-check in vim :D.

>> reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).
>>
>> Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
>> cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
>> offset to the destination register.
>
> Just to clarify for readers; BPF programs are run with migrate disable,
> which means that on RT we can be preempted, which means that per-cpu
> operations are trickier (disabling interrupts/preemption).
>
> However, this BPF instruction is about calculating the per-cpu address,
> so the look up can be inlined.
>
> It's not a per-cpu *operation*.

Will add this information to the commit message.

>> To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
>> used on Qemu:
>>
>> Before:
>> glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
>> arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
>> hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s
>>
>> After:
>> glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
>> arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
>> hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>>  #include <asm/patch.h>
>>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
>> +#include <asm/percpu.h>
>>  #include "bpf_jit.h"
>>  
>>  #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
>> @@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>>  			emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>>  			emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>>  			break;
>> +		} else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
>> +			if (rd != rs)
>> +				emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +				/* Load current CPU number in T1 */
>> +				emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu), RV_REG_TP,
>> +					ctx);
>> +				/* << 3 because offsets are 8 bytes */
>> +				emit_slli(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 3, ctx);
>> +				/* Load address of __per_cpu_offset array in T2 */
>> +				emit_imm(RV_REG_T2, (u64)&__per_cpu_offset, ctx);
>
> Did you try using emit_addr() here? I'd guess that'll be fewer
> instructions, no?

Yes, I should have used that, the address would always be in the range
of auipc+addi right? I will try and see. 

Thanks,
Puranjay

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:44 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
> data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
> users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
> internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
> JITs.
>
> RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
> are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
> the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
> tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
> reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).
>
> Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
> cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
> offset to the destination register.
>
> To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
> used on Qemu:
>
> Before:
> glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
> arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
> hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s
>
> After:
> glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
> arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
> hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s

TBH, I don't trust benchmarks done inside QEMU. Can you try running
this on some real hardware?

>
> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef
>
> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>  #include <asm/patch.h>
>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
> +#include <asm/percpu.h>
>  #include "bpf_jit.h"
>
>  #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
> @@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>                         emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>                         emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>                         break;
> +               } else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
> +                       if (rd != rs)
> +                               emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);

Is this an unconditional move instruction? in x86-64, EMIT_mov checks
whether source and destination registers are the same and doesn't emit
anything if they match (which makes sense, right)?

> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +                               /* Load current CPU number in T1 */
> +                               emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu), RV_REG_TP,
> +                                       ctx);

nit: maybe keep this on the same line?

> +                               /* << 3 because offsets are 8 bytes */
> +                               emit_slli(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 3, ctx);
> +                               /* Load address of __per_cpu_offset array in T2 */
> +                               emit_imm(RV_REG_T2, (u64)&__per_cpu_offset, ctx);
> +                               /* Add offset of current CPU to  __per_cpu_offset */
> +                               emit_add(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> +                               /* Load __per_cpu_offset[cpu] in T1 */
> +                               emit_ld(RV_REG_T1, 0, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> +                               /* Add the offset to Rd */
> +                               emit_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> +#endif
>                 }
>                 if (imm == 1) {
>                         /* Special mov32 for zext */
> @@ -2038,3 +2057,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void)
>  {
>         return true;
>  }
> +
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn(void)
> +{
> +       return true;
> +}
> --
> 2.40.1
>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Björn Töpel]

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:44 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
>> data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
>> users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
>> internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
>> JITs.
>>
>> RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
>> are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
>> the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
>> tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
>> reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).
>>
>> Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
>> cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
>> offset to the destination register.
>>
>> To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
>> used on Qemu:
>>
>> Before:
>> glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
>> arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
>> hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s
>>
>> After:
>> glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
>> arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
>> hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s
>
> TBH, I don't trust benchmarks done inside QEMU. Can you try running
> this on some real hardware?

I just ran it on a "VisionFive2" SBC:

BEFORE
======
glob-arr-inc   :   11.586 ± 0.021M/s 
arr-inc        :   10.892 ± 0.005M/s 
hash-inc       :    1.517 ± 0.001M/s 

AFTER
=====
glob-arr-inc   :   11.893 ± 0.017M/s  (+2.6%)
arr-inc        :   11.630 ± 0.020M/s  (+6.8%)
hash-inc       :    1.543 ± 0.002M/s  (+1.7%)

(It's early, and the coffee haven't kicked in, so I hope the
calculations are correct...)

>>
>> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>>  #include <asm/patch.h>
>>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
>> +#include <asm/percpu.h>
>>  #include "bpf_jit.h"
>>
>>  #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
>> @@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>>                         emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>>                         emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
>>                         break;
>> +               } else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
>> +                       if (rd != rs)
>> +                               emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
>
> Is this an unconditional move instruction? in x86-64, EMIT_mov checks
> whether source and destination registers are the same and doesn't emit
> anything if they match (which makes sense, right)?

Yeah, it is. Folding the check into the emit sounds like a good idea.


Björn

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:40 AM Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:44 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Support an instruction for resolving absolute addresses of per-CPU
> >> data from their per-CPU offsets. This instruction is internal-only and
> >> users are not allowed to use them directly. They will only be used for
> >> internal inlining optimizations for now between BPF verifier and BPF
> >> JITs.
> >>
> >> RISC-V uses generic per-cpu implementation where the offsets for CPUs
> >> are kept in an array called __per_cpu_offset[cpu_number]. RISCV stores
> >> the address of the task_struct in TP register. The first element in
> >> tast_struct is struct thread_info, and we can get the cpu number by
> >> reading from the TP register + offsetof(struct thread_info, cpu).
> >>
> >> Once we have the cpu number in a register we read the offset for that
> >> cpu from address: &__per_cpu_offset + cpu_number << 3. Then we add this
> >> offset to the destination register.
> >>
> >> To measure the improvement from this change, the benchmark in [1] was
> >> used on Qemu:
> >>
> >> Before:
> >> glob-arr-inc   :    1.127 ± 0.013M/s
> >> arr-inc        :    1.121 ± 0.004M/s
> >> hash-inc       :    0.681 ± 0.052M/s
> >>
> >> After:
> >> glob-arr-inc   :    1.138 ± 0.011M/s
> >> arr-inc        :    1.366 ± 0.006M/s
> >> hash-inc       :    0.676 ± 0.001M/s
> >
> > TBH, I don't trust benchmarks done inside QEMU. Can you try running
> > this on some real hardware?
>
> I just ran it on a "VisionFive2" SBC:
>
> BEFORE
> ======
> glob-arr-inc   :   11.586 ± 0.021M/s
> arr-inc        :   10.892 ± 0.005M/s
> hash-inc       :    1.517 ± 0.001M/s
>
> AFTER
> =====
> glob-arr-inc   :   11.893 ± 0.017M/s  (+2.6%)
> arr-inc        :   11.630 ± 0.020M/s  (+6.8%)
> hash-inc       :    1.543 ± 0.002M/s  (+1.7%)
>

Nice, looks pretty reasonable (and especially if
bpf_smp_get_current_id() gets inlined as well, the numbers should be
even better)


> (It's early, and the coffee haven't kicked in, so I hope the
> calculations are correct...)
>
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/linux/commit/8dec900975ef
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> >> index 15e482f2c657..e95bd1d459a4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> >> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
> >>  #include <asm/patch.h>
> >>  #include <asm/cfi.h>
> >> +#include <asm/percpu.h>
> >>  #include "bpf_jit.h"
> >>
> >>  #define RV_FENTRY_NINSNS 2
> >> @@ -1089,6 +1090,24 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
> >>                         emit_or(RV_REG_T1, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> >>                         emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
> >>                         break;
> >> +               } else if (insn_is_mov_percpu_addr(insn)) {
> >> +                       if (rd != rs)
> >> +                               emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
> >
> > Is this an unconditional move instruction? in x86-64, EMIT_mov checks
> > whether source and destination registers are the same and doesn't emit
> > anything if they match (which makes sense, right)?
>
> Yeah, it is. Folding the check into the emit sounds like a good idea.
>

great

>
> Björn