Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] filter: optimize sk_run_filter

David Miller
2010-11-19T17:51:35Z

From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:13:07 +0800

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] filter: optimize sk_run_filter
>>
>> Remove pc variable to avoid arithmetic to compute fentry at each filter
>> instruction. Jumps directly manipulate fentry pointer.
>>
>> As the last instruction of filter[] is guaranteed to be a RETURN, and
>> all jumps are before the last instruction, we dont need to check filter
>> bounds (number of instructions in filter array) at each iteration, so we
>> remove it from sk_run_filter() params.
>>
>> On x86_32 remove f_k var introduced in commit 57fe93b374a6b871
>> (filter: make sure filters dont read uninitialized memory)
>>
>> Note : We could use a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_{FEW|MANY}_REGISTERS in order to
>> avoid too many ifdefs in this code.
>>
>> This helps compiler to use cpu registers to hold fentry and A
>> accumulator.
>>
>> On x86_32, this saves 401 bytes, and more important, sk_run_filter()
>> runs much faster because less register pressure (One less conditional
>> branch per BPF instruction)
>>
>> # size net/core/filter.o net/core/filter_pre.o
>>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   2948       0       0    2948     b84 net/core/filter.o
>>   3349       0       0    3349     d15 net/core/filter_pre.o
>>
>> on x86_64 :
>> # size net/core/filter.o net/core/filter_pre.o
>>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   5173       0       0    5173    1435 net/core/filter.o
>>   5224       0       0    5224    1468 net/core/filter_pre.o
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
>
> Acked-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>

Ok, I'm applying this to net-next-2.6 for now. It keeps the
"f_k" situation optimal for all cases, on every platform I've
taken a look at the asm output (sparc64, x86-32, x86-64).

I can't currently think of a way to get rid of that ifdef,
so for now it's a small price to pay to get this optimal.

Thanks Eric!