On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:04:06AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:41 AM Gary Lin <glin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:37:33PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:54 AM Gary Lin <glin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > * pass to emit the final image.
> > > > */
> > > > - for (pass = 0; pass < 20 || image; pass++) {
> > > > - proglen = do_jit(prog, addrs, image, oldproglen, &ctx);
> > > > + for (pass = 0; pass < MAX_PASSES || image; pass++) {
> > > > + if (!padding && pass >= PADDING_PASSES)
> > > > + padding = true;
> > > > + proglen = do_jit(prog, addrs, image, oldproglen, &ctx, padding);
> > >
> > > I'm struggling to reconcile the discussion we had before holidays with
> > > the discussion you guys had in v2:
> > >
> > > >> What is the rationale for the latter when JIT is called again for subprog to fill in relative
> > > >> call locations?
> > > >>
> > > > Hmmmm, my thinking was that we only enable padding for those programs
> > > > which are already padded before. But, you're right. For the programs
> > > > converging without padding, enabling padding won't change the final
> > > > image, so it's safe to always set "padding" to true for the extra pass.
> > > >
> > > > Will remove the "padded" flag in v3.
> > >
> > > I'm not following why "enabling padding won't change the final image"
> > > is correct.
> > > Say the subprog image converges without padding.
> > > Then for subprog we call JIT again.
> > > Now extra_pass==true and padding==true.
> > > The JITed image will be different.
> > Actually no.
> >
> > > The test in patch 3 should have caught it, but it didn't,
> > > because it checks for a subprog that needed padding.
> > > The extra_pass needs to emit insns exactly in the right spots.
> > > Otherwise jump targets will be incorrect.
> > > The saved addrs[] array is crucial.
> > > If extra_pass emits different things the instruction starts won't align
> > > to places where addrs[] expects them to be.
> > >
> > When calculating padding bytes, if the image already converges, the
> > emitted instruction size just matches (addrs[i] - addrs[i-1]), so
> > emit_nops() emits 0 byte, and the image doesn't change.
>
> I see. You're right. That's very tricky.
>
> The patch set doesn't apply cleanly.
> Could you please rebase and add a detailed comment about this logic?
>
> Also please add comments why we check:
> nops != 0 && nops != 4
> nops != 0 && nops != 2 && nops != 5
> nops != 0 && nops != 3
> None of it is obvious.
Sure, I'll add comments for them.
>
> Does your single test cover all combinations of numbers?
>
The test case only covers the NOP JUMP for nops == 0 and nops == 2.
I have to figure out how to create a large enough program to trigger the
transition of imm32 jump to imm8 jump.
Gary Lin
