* [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit sign-extension to emit_sextw
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit zero-extension to emit_zextw Pu Lehui
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
For code unification, add emit_sextw wrapper to unify all the 32-bit
sign-extension operations.
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 5 +++++
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 10 +++++-----
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index d21c6c92a..03a6ecb43 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -1084,6 +1084,11 @@ static inline void emit_subw(u8 rd, u8 rs1, u8 rs2, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
emit(rv_subw(rd, rs1, rs2), ctx);
}
+static inline void emit_sextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ emit_addiw(rd, rs, 0, ctx);
+}
+
#endif /* __riscv_xlen == 64 */
void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx);
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 8423f4ddf..8b654c0cf 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -413,8 +413,8 @@ static void emit_zext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
static void emit_sext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
- emit_addiw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, 0, ctx);
- emit_addiw(RV_REG_T1, *rs, 0, ctx);
+ emit_sextw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
+ emit_sextw(RV_REG_T1, *rs, ctx);
*rd = RV_REG_T2;
*rs = RV_REG_T1;
}
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static void emit_zext_32_rd_t1(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
static void emit_sext_32_rd(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
- emit_addiw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, 0, ctx);
+ emit_sextw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
*rd = RV_REG_T2;
}
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_srai(rd, RV_REG_T1, 64 - insn->off, ctx);
break;
case 32:
- emit_addiw(rd, rs, 0, ctx);
+ emit_sextw(rd, rs, ctx);
break;
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
@@ -1457,7 +1457,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
* as t1 is used only in comparison against zero.
*/
if (!is64 && imm < 0)
- emit_addiw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, 0, ctx);
+ emit_sextw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
e = ctx->ninsns;
rvoff -= ninsns_rvoff(e - s);
emit_branch(BPF_JNE, RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, ctx);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit zero-extension to emit_zextw
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit sign-extension to emit_sextw Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions Pu Lehui
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
For code unification, add emit_zextw wrapper to unify all the 32-bit
zero-extension operations.
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 6 +++
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 80 +++++++++++++++------------------
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index 03a6ecb43..8e0ef4d08 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -1089,6 +1089,12 @@ static inline void emit_sextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
emit_addiw(rd, rs, 0, ctx);
}
+static inline void emit_zextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ emit_slli(rd, rs, 32, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 32, ctx);
+}
+
#endif /* __riscv_xlen == 64 */
void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx);
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 8b654c0cf..4a649e195 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -322,12 +322,6 @@ static void emit_branch(u8 cond, u8 rd, u8 rs, int rvoff,
emit(rv_jalr(RV_REG_ZERO, RV_REG_T1, lower), ctx);
}
-static void emit_zext_32(u8 reg, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
-{
- emit_slli(reg, reg, 32, ctx);
- emit_srli(reg, reg, 32, ctx);
-}
-
static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
int tc_ninsn, off, start_insn = ctx->ninsns;
@@ -342,7 +336,7 @@ static int emit_bpf_tail_call(int insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
*/
tc_ninsn = insn ? ctx->offset[insn] - ctx->offset[insn - 1] :
ctx->offset[0];
- emit_zext_32(RV_REG_A2, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(RV_REG_A2, RV_REG_A2, ctx);
off = offsetof(struct bpf_array, map.max_entries);
if (is_12b_check(off, insn))
@@ -404,9 +398,9 @@ static void init_regs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
static void emit_zext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
emit_mv(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- emit_zext_32(RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
emit_mv(RV_REG_T1, *rs, ctx);
- emit_zext_32(RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
*rd = RV_REG_T2;
*rs = RV_REG_T1;
}
@@ -422,8 +416,8 @@ static void emit_sext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
static void emit_zext_32_rd_t1(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
emit_mv(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- emit_zext_32(RV_REG_T2, ctx);
- emit_zext_32(RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
*rd = RV_REG_T2;
}
@@ -511,32 +505,32 @@ static void emit_atomic(u8 rd, u8 rs, s16 off, s32 imm, bool is64,
emit(is64 ? rv_amoadd_d(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
rv_amoadd_w(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
if (!is64)
- emit_zext_32(rs, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
break;
case BPF_AND | BPF_FETCH:
emit(is64 ? rv_amoand_d(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
rv_amoand_w(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
if (!is64)
- emit_zext_32(rs, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
break;
case BPF_OR | BPF_FETCH:
emit(is64 ? rv_amoor_d(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
rv_amoor_w(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
if (!is64)
- emit_zext_32(rs, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
break;
case BPF_XOR | BPF_FETCH:
emit(is64 ? rv_amoxor_d(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
rv_amoxor_w(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
if (!is64)
- emit_zext_32(rs, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
break;
/* src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off16, src_reg); */
case BPF_XCHG:
emit(is64 ? rv_amoswap_d(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0) :
rv_amoswap_w(rs, rs, rd, 0, 0), ctx);
if (!is64)
- emit_zext_32(rs, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
break;
/* r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off16, r0, src_reg); */
case BPF_CMPXCHG:
@@ -1044,7 +1038,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X:
if (imm == 1) {
/* Special mov32 for zext */
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
}
switch (insn->off) {
@@ -1061,7 +1055,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
break;
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = dst OP src */
@@ -1069,7 +1063,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X:
emit_add(rd, rd, rs, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_X:
@@ -1079,31 +1073,31 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_subw(rd, rd, rs, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
emit_and(rd, rd, rs, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR | BPF_X:
emit_or(rd, rd, rs, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_X:
emit_xor(rd, rd, rs, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_mul(rd, rd, rs) : rv_mulw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
@@ -1112,7 +1106,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
else
emit(is64 ? rv_divu(rd, rd, rs) : rv_divuw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
@@ -1121,25 +1115,25 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
else
emit(is64 ? rv_remu(rd, rd, rs) : rv_remuw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_sll(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sllw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_srl(rd, rd, rs) : rv_srlw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
emit(is64 ? rv_sra(rd, rd, rs) : rv_sraw(rd, rd, rs), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = -dst */
@@ -1147,7 +1141,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG:
emit_sub(rd, RV_REG_ZERO, rd, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = BSWAP##imm(dst) */
@@ -1159,7 +1153,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
break;
case 32:
if (!aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case 64:
/* Do nothing */
@@ -1221,7 +1215,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K:
emit_imm(rd, imm, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
/* dst = dst OP imm */
@@ -1234,7 +1228,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_add(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_SUB | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_SUB | BPF_K:
@@ -1245,7 +1239,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_sub(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_AND | BPF_K:
@@ -1256,7 +1250,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_and(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR | BPF_K:
@@ -1267,7 +1261,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_or(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_XOR | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_XOR | BPF_K:
@@ -1278,7 +1272,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_xor(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
}
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K:
@@ -1286,7 +1280,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit(is64 ? rv_mul(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
rv_mulw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K:
@@ -1298,7 +1292,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit(is64 ? rv_divu(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
rv_divuw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K:
@@ -1310,14 +1304,14 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit(is64 ? rv_remu(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1) :
rv_remuw(rd, rd, RV_REG_T1), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_K:
emit_slli(rd, rd, imm, ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
@@ -1327,7 +1321,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit(rv_srliw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case BPF_ALU | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_K:
@@ -1337,7 +1331,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit(rv_sraiw(rd, rd, imm), ctx);
if (!is64 && !aux->verifier_zext)
- emit_zext_32(rd, ctx);
+ emit_zextw(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
/* JUMP off */
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit sign-extension to emit_sextw Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit zero-extension to emit_zextw Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
2023-09-16 14:47 ` Simon Horman
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions Pu Lehui
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
There are many extension helpers in the current branch instructions, and
the implementation is a bit complicated. We simplify this logic through
two simple extension helpers with alternate register.
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 82 +++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 4a649e195..1728ce16d 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -141,6 +141,19 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
}
+/* Modify rd pointer to alternate reg to avoid corrupting orignal reg */
+static void emit_sextw_alt(u8 *rd, u8 ra, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ emit_sextw(ra, *rd, ctx);
+ *rd = ra;
+}
+
+static void emit_zextw_alt(u8 *rd, u8 ra, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ emit_zextw(ra, *rd, ctx);
+ *rd = ra;
+}
+
/* Emit fixed-length instructions for address */
static int emit_addr(u8 rd, u64 addr, bool extra_pass, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
@@ -395,38 +408,6 @@ static void init_regs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, const struct bpf_insn *insn,
*rs = bpf_to_rv_reg(insn->src_reg, ctx);
}
-static void emit_zext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
-{
- emit_mv(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- emit_zextw(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
- emit_mv(RV_REG_T1, *rs, ctx);
- emit_zextw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- *rd = RV_REG_T2;
- *rs = RV_REG_T1;
-}
-
-static void emit_sext_32_rd_rs(u8 *rd, u8 *rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
-{
- emit_sextw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- emit_sextw(RV_REG_T1, *rs, ctx);
- *rd = RV_REG_T2;
- *rs = RV_REG_T1;
-}
-
-static void emit_zext_32_rd_t1(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
-{
- emit_mv(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- emit_zextw(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
- emit_zextw(RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
- *rd = RV_REG_T2;
-}
-
-static void emit_sext_32_rd(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
-{
- emit_sextw(RV_REG_T2, *rd, ctx);
- *rd = RV_REG_T2;
-}
-
static int emit_jump_and_link(u8 rd, s64 rvoff, bool fixed_addr,
struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
@@ -1372,22 +1353,22 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
rvoff = rv_offset(i, off, ctx);
if (!is64) {
s = ctx->ninsns;
- if (is_signed_bpf_cond(BPF_OP(code)))
- emit_sext_32_rd_rs(&rd, &rs, ctx);
- else
- emit_zext_32_rd_rs(&rd, &rs, ctx);
+ if (is_signed_bpf_cond(BPF_OP(code))) {
+ emit_sextw_alt(&rs, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_sextw_alt(&rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit_zextw_alt(&rs, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_zextw_alt(&rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ }
e = ctx->ninsns;
-
/* Adjust for extra insns */
rvoff -= ninsns_rvoff(e - s);
}
-
if (BPF_OP(code) == BPF_JSET) {
/* Adjust for and */
rvoff -= 4;
emit_and(RV_REG_T1, rd, rs, ctx);
- emit_branch(BPF_JNE, RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff,
- ctx);
+ emit_branch(BPF_JNE, RV_REG_T1, RV_REG_ZERO, rvoff, ctx);
} else {
emit_branch(BPF_OP(code), rd, rs, rvoff, ctx);
}
@@ -1416,21 +1397,20 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_JMP32 | BPF_JSLE | BPF_K:
rvoff = rv_offset(i, off, ctx);
s = ctx->ninsns;
- if (imm) {
+ if (imm)
emit_imm(RV_REG_T1, imm, ctx);
- rs = RV_REG_T1;
- } else {
- /* If imm is 0, simply use zero register. */
- rs = RV_REG_ZERO;
- }
+ rs = imm ? RV_REG_T1 : RV_REG_ZERO;
if (!is64) {
- if (is_signed_bpf_cond(BPF_OP(code)))
- emit_sext_32_rd(&rd, ctx);
- else
- emit_zext_32_rd_t1(&rd, ctx);
+ if (is_signed_bpf_cond(BPF_OP(code))) {
+ emit_sextw_alt(&rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ /* rs has been sign extended */
+ } else {
+ emit_zextw_alt(&rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ if (imm)
+ emit_zextw(rs, rs, ctx);
+ }
}
e = ctx->ninsns;
-
/* Adjust for extra insns */
rvoff -= ninsns_rvoff(e - s);
emit_branch(BPF_OP(code), rd, rs, rvoff, ctx);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-16 14:47 ` Simon Horman
2023-09-18 0:32 ` Pu Lehui
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2023-09-16 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pu Lehui
Cc: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev, Björn Töpel,
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa, Palmer Dabbelt,
Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:10PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>
> There are many extension helpers in the current branch instructions, and
> the implementation is a bit complicated. We simplify this logic through
> two simple extension helpers with alternate register.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 82 +++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> index 4a649e195..1728ce16d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> @@ -141,6 +141,19 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
> val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
> }
>
> +/* Modify rd pointer to alternate reg to avoid corrupting orignal reg */
Hi Pu Lehui,
nit: original
I suggest running checkpatch --codespell over this series before submitting
v2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions
2023-09-16 14:47 ` Simon Horman
@ 2023-09-18 0:32 ` Pu Lehui
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-18 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Horman, Pu Lehui
Cc: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev, Björn Töpel,
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa, Palmer Dabbelt,
Luke Nelson
On 2023/9/16 22:47, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:10PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>
>> There are many extension helpers in the current branch instructions, and
>> the implementation is a bit complicated. We simplify this logic through
>> two simple extension helpers with alternate register.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 82 +++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> index 4a649e195..1728ce16d 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>> @@ -141,6 +141,19 @@ static bool in_auipc_jalr_range(s64 val)
>> val < ((1L << 31) - (1L << 11));
>> }
>>
>> +/* Modify rd pointer to alternate reg to avoid corrupting orignal reg */
>
> Hi Pu Lehui,
>
> nit: original >
> I suggest running checkpatch --codespell over this series before submitting
> v2.
Thanks Simon, will check this in next.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 16:23 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize sign-extention mov insns with Zbb support Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize bswap " Pu Lehui
5 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
improve performance of RV64 JIT. At the same time, a helper is added to
check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
[0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index 8e0ef4d08..7ee59d1f6 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
}
+static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
+{
+ return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB);
+}
+
enum {
RV_REG_ZERO = 0, /* The constant value 0 */
RV_REG_RA = 1, /* Return address */
@@ -727,6 +732,27 @@ static inline u16 rvc_swsp(u32 imm8, u8 rs2)
return rv_css_insn(0x6, imm, rs2, 0x2);
}
+/* RVZBB instrutions. */
+static inline u32 rvzbb_sextb(u8 rd, u8 rs1)
+{
+ return rv_i_insn(0x604, rs1, 1, rd, 0x13);
+}
+
+static inline u32 rvzbb_sexth(u8 rd, u8 rs1)
+{
+ return rv_i_insn(0x605, rs1, 1, rd, 0x13);
+}
+
+static inline u32 rvzbb_zexth(u8 rd, u8 rs)
+{
+ return rv_i_insn(0x80, rs, 4, rd, __riscv_xlen == 64 ? 0x3b : 0x33);
+}
+
+static inline u32 rvzbb_rev8(u8 rd, u8 rs)
+{
+ return rv_i_insn(__riscv_xlen == 64 ? 0x6b8 : 0x698, rs, 5, rd, 0x13);
+}
+
/*
* RV64-only instructions.
*
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 16:23 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-14 13:02 ` Conor Dooley
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Conor Dooley @ 2023-09-13 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pu Lehui
Cc: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev, Björn Töpel,
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa, Palmer Dabbelt,
Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2464 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:11PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>
> Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
> improve performance of RV64 JIT. At the same time, a helper is added to
> check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
>
> [0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf
>
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> index 8e0ef4d08..7ee59d1f6 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
> return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
> }
>
> +static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
> +{
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB);
> +}
I dunno much about bpf, so passing question that may be a bit obvious:
Is this meant to be a test as to whether the kernel binary is built with
support for the extension, or whether the underlying platform is capable
of executing zbb instructions.
Sorry if that would be obvious to a bpf aficionado, context I have here
is the later user and the above rvc_enabled() test, which functions
differently to Zbb and so doesn't really help me.
Thanks,
Conor.
> +
> enum {
> RV_REG_ZERO = 0, /* The constant value 0 */
> RV_REG_RA = 1, /* Return address */
> @@ -727,6 +732,27 @@ static inline u16 rvc_swsp(u32 imm8, u8 rs2)
> return rv_css_insn(0x6, imm, rs2, 0x2);
> }
>
> +/* RVZBB instrutions. */
> +static inline u32 rvzbb_sextb(u8 rd, u8 rs1)
> +{
> + return rv_i_insn(0x604, rs1, 1, rd, 0x13);
> +}
> +
> +static inline u32 rvzbb_sexth(u8 rd, u8 rs1)
> +{
> + return rv_i_insn(0x605, rs1, 1, rd, 0x13);
> +}
> +
> +static inline u32 rvzbb_zexth(u8 rd, u8 rs)
> +{
> + return rv_i_insn(0x80, rs, 4, rd, __riscv_xlen == 64 ? 0x3b : 0x33);
> +}
> +
> +static inline u32 rvzbb_rev8(u8 rd, u8 rs)
> +{
> + return rv_i_insn(__riscv_xlen == 64 ? 0x6b8 : 0x698, rs, 5, rd, 0x13);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * RV64-only instructions.
> *
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions
2023-09-13 16:23 ` Conor Dooley
@ 2023-09-14 13:02 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-14 14:04 ` Pu Lehui
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Conor Dooley @ 2023-09-14 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor Dooley
Cc: Pu Lehui, bpf, linux-riscv, netdev, Björn Töpel,
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa, Palmer Dabbelt,
Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1744 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:23:48PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:11PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
> > From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> >
> > Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
> > improve performance of RV64 JIT. At the same time, a helper is added to
> > check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > index 8e0ef4d08..7ee59d1f6 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
> > @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
> > return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB);
> > +}
>
> I dunno much about bpf, so passing question that may be a bit obvious:
> Is this meant to be a test as to whether the kernel binary is built with
> support for the extension, or whether the underlying platform is capable
> of executing zbb instructions.
>
> Sorry if that would be obvious to a bpf aficionado, context I have here
> is the later user and the above rvc_enabled() test, which functions
> differently to Zbb and so doesn't really help me.
FTR, I got an off-list reply about this & it is meant to be a check as
to whether the underlying platform supports the extension. The current
test here is insufficient for that.
Thanks,
Conor.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions
2023-09-14 13:02 ` Conor Dooley
@ 2023-09-14 14:04 ` Pu Lehui
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-14 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Conor Dooley, Conor Dooley
Cc: Pu Lehui, bpf, linux-riscv, netdev, Björn Töpel,
Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song, John Fastabend,
KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa, Palmer Dabbelt,
Luke Nelson
On 2023/9/14 21:02, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:23:48PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:11PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
>>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
>>> improve performance of RV64 JIT. At the same time, a helper is added to
>>> check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>>> index 8e0ef4d08..7ee59d1f6 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
>>> return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB);
>>> +}
>>
>> I dunno much about bpf, so passing question that may be a bit obvious:
>> Is this meant to be a test as to whether the kernel binary is built with
>> support for the extension, or whether the underlying platform is capable
>> of executing zbb instructions.
>>
>> Sorry if that would be obvious to a bpf aficionado, context I have here
>> is the later user and the above rvc_enabled() test, which functions
>> differently to Zbb and so doesn't really help me.
>
> FTR, I got an off-list reply about this & it is meant to be a check as
> to whether the underlying platform supports the extension. The current
> test here is insufficient for that.
>
Thanks Conor for explain me lot about the difference between Compressed
instructions and Zbb instructions. As the compressed instructions are a
build-time option, while the Zbb is runtime detected. We need to add
additional runtime detection as show bellow:
riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB)
will patch this suggestion to the next version.
Thanks,
Lehui.
> Thanks,
> Conor.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize sign-extention mov insns with Zbb support
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize bswap " Pu Lehui
5 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Add 8-bit and 16-bit sign-extention wraper with Zbb support to optimize
sign-extension mov instructions.
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index 7ee59d1f6..fb6347bd4 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -1110,6 +1110,26 @@ static inline void emit_subw(u8 rd, u8 rs1, u8 rs2, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
emit(rv_subw(rd, rs1, rs2), ctx);
}
+static inline void emit_sextb(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ if (rvzbb_enabled()) {
+ emit(rvzbb_sextb(rd, rs), ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit_slli(rd, rs, 56, ctx);
+ emit_srai(rd, rd, 56, ctx);
+ }
+}
+
+static inline void emit_sexth(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ if (rvzbb_enabled()) {
+ emit(rvzbb_sexth(rd, rs), ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit_slli(rd, rs, 48, ctx);
+ emit_srai(rd, rd, 48, ctx);
+ }
+}
+
static inline void emit_sextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
emit_addiw(rd, rs, 0, ctx);
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 1728ce16d..2ba14d716 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -1027,9 +1027,10 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
emit_mv(rd, rs, ctx);
break;
case 8:
+ emit_sextb(rd, rs, ctx);
+ break;
case 16:
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T1, rs, 64 - insn->off, ctx);
- emit_srai(rd, RV_REG_T1, 64 - insn->off, ctx);
+ emit_sexth(rd, rs, ctx);
break;
case 32:
emit_sextw(rd, rs, ctx);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize bswap insns with Zbb support
2023-09-13 15:34 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT Pu Lehui
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-09-13 15:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize sign-extention mov insns with Zbb support Pu Lehui
@ 2023-09-13 15:34 ` Pu Lehui
5 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pu Lehui @ 2023-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf, linux-riscv, netdev
Cc: Björn Töpel, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Martin KaFai Lau, Song Liu, Yonghong Song,
John Fastabend, KP Singh, Stanislav Fomichev, Hao Luo, Jiri Olsa,
Palmer Dabbelt, Luke Nelson, Pu Lehui, Pu Lehui
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Optimize bswap instructions by rev8 Zbb instruction conbined with srli
instruction. And Optimize 16-bit zero-extension with Zbb support.
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 50 +------------------------
2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index fb6347bd4..ebd23dbd3 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -1135,12 +1135,78 @@ static inline void emit_sextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
emit_addiw(rd, rs, 0, ctx);
}
+static inline void emit_zexth(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ if (rvzbb_enabled()) {
+ emit(rvzbb_zexth(rd, rs), ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit_slli(rd, rs, 48, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 48, ctx);
+ }
+}
+
static inline void emit_zextw(u8 rd, u8 rs, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
{
emit_slli(rd, rs, 32, ctx);
emit_srli(rd, rd, 32, ctx);
}
+static inline void emit_bswap(u8 rd, s32 imm, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
+{
+ if (rvzbb_enabled()) {
+ int bits = 64 - imm;
+ emit(rvzbb_rev8(rd, rd), ctx);
+ if (bits)
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, bits, ctx);
+ } else {
+ emit_li(RV_REG_T2, 0, ctx);
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+ if (imm == 16)
+ goto out_be;
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+ if (imm == 32)
+ goto out_be;
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+ emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
+ emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
+out_be:
+ emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
+ emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
+
+ emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ }
+}
+
#endif /* __riscv_xlen == 64 */
void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx);
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 2ba14d716..9ef702607 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -1130,8 +1130,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
case BPF_ALU | BPF_END | BPF_FROM_LE:
switch (imm) {
case 16:
- emit_slli(rd, rd, 48, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 48, ctx);
+ emit_zexth(rd, rd, ctx);
break;
case 32:
if (!aux->verifier_zext)
@@ -1142,54 +1141,9 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
break;
}
break;
-
case BPF_ALU | BPF_END | BPF_FROM_BE:
case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_END | BPF_FROM_LE:
- emit_li(RV_REG_T2, 0, ctx);
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
- if (imm == 16)
- goto out_be;
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
- if (imm == 32)
- goto out_be;
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
-
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
- emit_slli(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, 8, ctx);
- emit_srli(rd, rd, 8, ctx);
-out_be:
- emit_andi(RV_REG_T1, rd, 0xff, ctx);
- emit_add(RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T2, RV_REG_T1, ctx);
-
- emit_mv(rd, RV_REG_T2, ctx);
+ emit_bswap(rd, imm, ctx);
break;
/* dst = imm */
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread