Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/13] Atomics for eBPF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 12/1/20 9:05 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:


On 12/1/20 6:00 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 7:51 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:



On 11/30/20 9:22 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:


On 11/28/20 5:40 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 09:53:05PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:


On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
Status of the patches
=====================

Thanks for the reviews! Differences from v1->v2 [1]:

* Fixed mistakes in the netronome driver

* Addd sub, add, or, xor operations

* The above led to some refactors to keep things readable. (Maybe I
     should have just waited until I'd implemented these before starting
     the review...)

* Replaced BPF_[CMP]SET | BPF_FETCH with just BPF_[CMP]XCHG, which
     include the BPF_FETCH flag

* Added a bit of documentation. Suggestions welcome for more places
     to dump this info...

The prog_test that's added depends on Clang/LLVM features added by
Yonghong in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72184
This only includes a JIT implementation for x86_64 - I don't plan to
implement JIT support myself for other architectures.

Operations
==========

This patchset adds atomic operations to the eBPF instruction set. The
use-case that motivated this work was a trivial and efficient way to
generate globally-unique cookies in BPF progs, but I think it's
obvious that these features are pretty widely applicable.  The
instructions that are added here can be summarised with this list of
kernel operations:

* atomic[64]_[fetch_]add
* atomic[64]_[fetch_]sub
* atomic[64]_[fetch_]and
* atomic[64]_[fetch_]or

* atomic[64]_[fetch_]xor

* atomic[64]_xchg
* atomic[64]_cmpxchg

Thanks. Overall looks good to me but I did not check carefully
on jit part as I am not an expert in x64 assembly...

This patch also introduced atomic[64]_{sub,and,or,xor}, similar to
xadd. I am not sure whether it is necessary. For one thing,
users can just use atomic[64]_fetch_{sub,and,or,xor} to ignore
return value and they will achieve the same result, right?
  From llvm side, there is no ready-to-use gcc builtin matching
atomic[64]_{sub,and,or,xor} which does not have return values.
If we go this route, we will need to invent additional bpf
specific builtins.

I think bpf specific builtins are overkill.
As you said the users can use atomic_fetch_xor() and ignore
return value. I think llvm backend should be smart enough to use
BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_XOR insn without BPF_FETCH bit in such case.
But if it's too cumbersome to do at the moment we skip this
optimization for now.

We can initially all have BPF_FETCH bit as at that point we do not
have def-use chain. Later on we can add a
machine ssa IR phase and check whether the result of, say
atomic_fetch_or(), is used or not. If not, we can change the
instruction to atomic_or.

Just implemented what we discussed above in llvm:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72184 main change:
    1. atomic_fetch_sub (and later atomic_sub) is gone. llvm will
       transparently transforms it to negation followed by
       atomic_fetch_add or atomic_add (xadd). Kernel can remove
       atomic_fetch_sub/atomic_sub insns.
    2. added new instructions for atomic_{and, or, xor}.
    3. for gcc builtin e.g., __sync_fetch_and_or(), if return
       value is used, atomic_fetch_or will be generated. Otherwise,
       atomic_or will be generated.

Great, this means that all existing valid uses of
__sync_fetch_and_add() will generate BPF_XADD instructions and will
work on old kernels, right?

That is correct.


If that's the case, do we still need cpu=v4? The new instructions are
*only* going to be generated if the user uses previously unsupported
__sync_fetch_xxx() intrinsics. So, in effect, the user consciously
opts into using new BPF instructions. cpu=v4 seems like an unnecessary
tautology then?

This is a very good question. Essentially this boils to when users can use the new functionality including meaningful return value  of __sync_fetch_and_add().
   (1). user can write a small bpf program to test the feature. If user
        gets a failed compilation (fatal error), it won't be supported.
        Otherwise, it is supported.
   (2). compiler provides some way to tell user it is safe to use, e.g.,
        -mcpu=v4, or some clang macro suggested by Brendan earlier.

I guess since kernel already did a lot of feature discovery. Option (1)
is probably fine.

Just pushed a new llvm version (https://reviews.llvm.org/D72184) which
removed -mcpu=v4. The new instructions will be generated by default
for 64bit type. For 32bit type, alu32 is required. Currently -mcpu=v3
already has alu32 as default and kernel supporting atomic insns should
have good alu32 support too. So I decided to have skip non-alu32 32bit
mode. But if people feel strongly to support non-alu32 32bit mode atomic
instructions, I can add them in llvm... The instruction encodings are
the same for alu32/non-alu32 32bit mode so the kernel will not be
impacted.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux