Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2024/2/1 18:10, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>>> @@ -252,10 +220,7 @@ static void __build_epilogue(bool is_tail_call, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>>>>> emit_ld(RV_REG_S5, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
>>>>> store_offset -= 8;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (seen_reg(RV_REG_S6, ctx)) {
>>>>> - emit_ld(RV_REG_S6, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
>>>>> - store_offset -= 8;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + emit_ld(RV_REG_TCC, store_offset, RV_REG_SP, ctx);
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need to restore RV_REG_TCC? We're passing RV_REG_TCC (a6) as
>>>> an argument at all call-sites, and for tailcalls we're loading from the
>>>> stack.
>>>>
>>>> Is this to fake the a6 argument for the tail-call? If so, it's better to
>>>> move it to emit_bpf_tail_call(), instead of letting all programs pay for
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Yes, we can remove this duplicate load. will do that at next version.
>>
>> Hmm, no remove, but *move* right? Otherwise a6 can contain gargabe on
>> entering the tailcall?
>>
>> Move it before __emit_epilogue() in the tailcall, no?
>>
>
> IIUC, we don't need to load it again. In emit_bpf_tail_call function, we
> load TCC from stack to A6, A6--, then store A6 back to stack. Then
> unwind the current stack and jump to target bpf prog, during this
> period, we did not touch the A6 register, do we still need to load it again?
a6 has to be populated prior each call -- including tailcalls. An
example, how it can break:
main_prog() -> prologue (a6 := 0; push a6) -> bpf_helper() (random
kernel path that clobbers a6) -> tailcall(foo()) (unwinds stack, enters
foo() with a6 garbage, and push a6).
Am I missing something?
