On 2024/1/30 16:29, Björn Töpel wrote:
Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:On 2023/9/28 17:59, Björn Töpel wrote:Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> In the current RV64 JIT, if we just don't initialize the TCC in subprog, the TCC can be propagated from the parent process to the subprocess, but the TCC of the parent process cannot be restored when the subprocess exits. Since the RV64 TCC is initialized before saving the callee saved registers into the stack, we cannot use the callee saved register to pass the TCC, otherwise the original value of the callee saved register will be destroyed. So we implemented mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls similar to x86_64, i.e. using a non-callee saved register to transfer the TCC between functions, and saving that register to the stack to protect the TCC value. At the same time, we also consider the scenario of mixing trampoline.Hi! The RISC-V JIT tries to minimize the stack usage, e.g. it doesn't have a fixed pro/epilogue like some of the other JITs. I think we can do better here, so that the pass-TCC-via-register can be used, and the additional stack access can be avoided. Today, the TCC is passed via a register (a6) and can be viewed as a "state" variable/transparent argument/return value. As you point out, we loose this when we do a call. On (any) calls we move the TCC to a callee-saved register. WDYT about the following scheme: 1 Pickup the arm64 bpf2bpf/tailmix mechanism of just clearing the TCC for the main program. 2 For BPF helper calls, move TCC to s6, perform the call, and restore a6. Dito for kfunc calls (BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL). 3 For all other calls, a6 is passed transparently. For 2 bpf_jit_get_func_addr() can be used to determine if the callee is a BPF helper or not. In summary; Determine in the JIT if we're leaving BPF-land, and need to move the TCC to a callee-saved reg, or not, and save us a bunch of stack store/loads.Valuable scheme. But we need to consider TCC back propagation. Let me show an example of calling subprog with TCC stored in A6: prog1(TCC==1){ subprog1(TCC==1) -> tailcall1(TCC==0) -> subprog2(TCC==0) subprog3(TCC==0) <--- should be TCC==1 -\-> tailcall2 <--- can't be called }
Let's back with this example again. Imagine that the tailcall chain is a list limited to 33 elements. When the list has 32 elements, we call subprog1 and then tailcall1. At this time, the list elements count becomes 33. Then we call subprog2 and return prog1. At this time, the list removes 1 element and becomes 32 elements. At this time, there still can perform 1 tailcall.
I've attached a diagram that shows mixing tailcall and subprogs is nearly a "call". It can return to caller function.
We call prog1 and TCC is 1. prog1 has two subprogs, subprog1 and subprog3. subprog1 calls tailcall1 and TCC become to 0. tailcall1 call subprog2 and then return to prog1 with TCC is 0. At this time, subprog3 cannot call tailcall2 because TCC is 0. But TCC should be 1 here.Huh, I'm not following, and I don't see the issue. Help me out! You're only allowed to do X tail calls "globally" for a BPF context, right? So in the example you're outlining above, tailcall2 shouldn't be allowed to be called. Björn
Attachment:
bpf2bpf&tailcall.png
Description: PNG image
