lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] MIPS: Add support for eBPF JIT.
From
Date
On 05/26/2017 12:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 05/26/2017 05:39 PM, David Daney wrote:
>> On 05/26/2017 08:14 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2017 02:38 AM, David Daney wrote:
>>>> Since the eBPF machine has 64-bit registers, we only support this in
>>>> 64-bit kernels. As of the writing of this commit log test-bpf is
>>>> showing:
>>>>
>>>> test_bpf: Summary: 316 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [308/308 JIT'ed]
>>>>
>>>> All current test cases are successfully compiled.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>>>
>>> Awesome work!
>>>
>>> Did you also manage to run tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ fine with
>>> the JIT enabled?
>>
>> I haven't done that yet, I will before the next revision.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct jit_ctx ctx;
>>>> + unsigned int alloc_size;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Only 64-bit kernel supports eBPF */
>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || !bpf_jit_enable)
>>>
>>> Isn't this already reflected by the following?
>>>
>>> select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if (64BIT && !CPU_MICROMIPS)
>>
>> Not exactly. The eBPF JIT is in the same file as the classic-BPF JIT,
>> so when HAVE_EBPF_JIT is false this will indeed never be called. But
>> the kernel would otherwise contain all the JIT code.
>>
>> By putting in !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) we allow gcc to eliminate all
>> the dead code when compiling the JITs.
>
> Side-effect would still be that for cBPF you go through the cBPF
> JIT instead of letting the kernel convert all cBPF to eBPF and
> later on go through your eBPF JIT. If you still prefer to have
> everything in one single file and let gcc eliminate dead code
> then you can just do single line change ...
>
> void bpf_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *fp)
> {
> struct jit_ctx ctx;
> unsigned int alloc_size, tmp_idx;
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EBPF_JIT) || !bpf_jit_enable)
> return;

Yes. In fact I did that for testing.

The cBPF JIT generates smaller code for:

test_bpf: #274 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 44128 PASS

When we attempt to use the eBPF JIT for this, some of the MIPS branch
instructions cannot reach their targets (+- 32K instructions). I didn't
feel like fixing the code generation quite yet to handle branches that
span more than 32K instructions, so I left the cBPF in place so I could
claim that all of the test cases were JITed :-)

For the next revision of the patch I will revisit this.

David.

> [...]
> }
>
> ... and bpf_prog_ebpf_jited() et al wouldn't need to be changed
> in the core, which are used in kallsyms, and kernel will then
> also be able to automatically JIT all of seccomp-BPF and the
> missing cBPF extensions we have through the eBPF JIT w/o extra
> work.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-26 21:21    [W:1.510 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site