From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:24:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzahfDssv6SgKYmay+CxQ7GAY9TD5LPG8D9NjGrzMBY28Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87cyr0uwsg.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-18 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-05 12:43 [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: add internal-only MOV instruction to resolve per-CPU addrs Puranjay Mohan
2024-04-05 14:16 ` Björn Töpel
2024-04-05 14:33 ` Puranjay Mohan
2024-04-05 18:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-04-08 7:40 ` Björn Töpel
2024-04-18 22:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAEf4BzahfDssv6SgKYmay+CxQ7GAY9TD5LPG8D9NjGrzMBY28Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=puranjay12@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).