Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf, arm64: Emit A64_{ADD,SUB}_I when possible in emit_{lse,ll_sc}_atomic()

[Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/28/2024 7:36 AM, Peilin Ye wrote:
> Currently in emit_{lse,ll_sc}_atomic(), if there is an offset, we add it
> to the base address by emitting two instructions, for example:
>
>    if (off) {
>            emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
>            emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, dst), ctx);
>    ...
>
> As pointed out by Xu, we can combine the above into a single A64_ADD_I
> instruction if 'is_addsub_imm(off)' is true, or an A64_SUB_I, if
> 'is_addsub_imm(-off)' is true.
>
> Suggested-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hi all,
>
> This was pointed out by Xu in [1] .  Tested on x86-64, using
> PLATFORM=aarch64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- vmtest.sh:
>
> LSE:
>    * ./test_progs-cpuv4 -a atomics,arena_atomics
>      2/15 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>    * ./test_verifier
>      790 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> LL/SC:
> (In vmtest.sh, changed '-cpu' QEMU option from 'cortex-a76' to
>   'cortex-a57', to make LSE atomics unavailable.)
>    * ./test_progs-cpuv4 -a atomics
>      1/7 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>    * ./test_verifier
>      790 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Thanks,
> Peilin Ye
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/f704019d-a8fa-4cf5-a606-9d8328360a3e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
>   arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 9040033eb1ea..f15bbe92fed9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -649,8 +649,14 @@ static int emit_lse_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>   	u8 reg = dst;
>   
>   	if (off) {
> -		emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> -		emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, dst), ctx);
> +		if (is_addsub_imm(off)) {
> +			emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tmp, reg, off), ctx);
> +		} else if (is_addsub_imm(-off)) {
> +			emit(A64_SUB_I(1, tmp, reg, -off), ctx);
> +		} else {
> +			emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> +			emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, reg), ctx);
> +		}
>   		reg = tmp;
>   	}
>   	if (arena) {
> @@ -721,7 +727,7 @@ static int emit_ll_sc_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>   	const s32 imm = insn->imm;
>   	const s16 off = insn->off;
>   	const bool isdw = BPF_SIZE(code) == BPF_DW;
> -	u8 reg;
> +	u8 reg = dst;
>   	s32 jmp_offset;
>   
>   	if (BPF_MODE(code) == BPF_PROBE_ATOMIC) {
> @@ -730,11 +736,15 @@ static int emit_ll_sc_atomic(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (!off) {
> -		reg = dst;
> -	} else {
> -		emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> -		emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, dst), ctx);
> +	if (off) {
> +		if (is_addsub_imm(off)) {
> +			emit(A64_ADD_I(1, tmp, reg, off), ctx);
> +		} else if (is_addsub_imm(-off)) {
> +			emit(A64_SUB_I(1, tmp, reg, -off), ctx);
> +		} else {
> +			emit_a64_mov_i(1, tmp, off, ctx);
> +			emit(A64_ADD(1, tmp, tmp, reg), ctx);
> +		}
>   		reg = tmp;
>   	}
>   

Thanks, this looks good to me, but we now have serveral repetitive code
snippets like this. It would be better to refactor them into a common
function.