From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/11] bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:47:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eac87f05-708b-0ac7-4c76-6babd9ab5f56@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201215121816.1048557-9-jackmanb@google.com>
On 12/15/20 4:18 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> This adds two atomic opcodes, both of which include the BPF_FETCH
> flag. XCHG without the BPF_FETCH flag would naturally encode
> atomic_set. This is not supported because it would be of limited
> value to userspace (it doesn't imply any barriers). CMPXCHG without
> BPF_FETCH woulud be an atomic compare-and-write. We don't have such
> an operation in the kernel so it isn't provided to BPF either.
>
> There are two significant design decisions made for the CMPXCHG
> instruction:
>
> - To solve the issue that this operation fundamentally has 3
> operands, but we only have two register fields. Therefore the
> operand we compare against (the kernel's API calls it 'old') is
> hard-coded to be R0. x86 has similar design (and A64 doesn't
> have this problem).
>
> A potential alternative might be to encode the other operand's
> register number in the immediate field.
>
> - The kernel's atomic_cmpxchg returns the old value, while the C11
> userspace APIs return a boolean indicating the comparison
> result. Which should BPF do? A64 returns the old value. x86 returns
> the old value in the hard-coded register (and also sets a
> flag). That means return-old-value is easier to JIT, so that's
> what we use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Ack with a minor comment below.
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 8 ++++++++
> include/linux/filter.h | 2 ++
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 4 +++-
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/disasm.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
> tools/include/linux/filter.h | 2 ++
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 4 +++-
> 8 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index eea7d8b0bb12..308241187582 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -815,6 +815,14 @@ static int emit_atomic(u8 **pprog, u8 atomic_op,
> /* src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(dst_reg + off, src_reg); */
> EMIT2(0x0F, 0xC1);
> break;
> + case BPF_XCHG:
> + /* src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off, src_reg); */
> + EMIT1(0x87);
> + break;
> + case BPF_CMPXCHG:
> + /* r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off, r0, src_reg); */
> + EMIT2(0x0F, 0xB1);
> + break;
> default:
> pr_err("bpf_jit: unknown atomic opcode %02x\n", atomic_op);
> return -EFAULT;
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index c3e87a63e0b8..16e0ba5e8937 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -265,6 +265,8 @@ static inline bool insn_is_zext(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
> *
> * BPF_ADD *(uint *) (dst_reg + off16) += src_reg
> * BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH src_reg = atomic_fetch_add(dst_reg + off16, src_reg);
> + * BPF_XCHG src_reg = atomic_xchg(dst_reg + off16, src_reg)
> + * BPF_CMPXCHG r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(dst_reg + off16, r0, src_reg)
> */
>
> #define BPF_ATOMIC_OP(SIZE, OP, DST, SRC, OFF) \
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 760ae333a5ed..538b95472c8f 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@
> #define BPF_EXIT 0x90 /* function return */
>
> /* atomic op type fields (stored in immediate) */
> -#define BPF_FETCH 0x01 /* fetch previous value into src reg */
> +#define BPF_XCHG (0xe0 | BPF_FETCH) /* atomic exchange */
> +#define BPF_CMPXCHG (0xf0 | BPF_FETCH) /* atomic compare-and-write */
> +#define BPF_FETCH 0x01 /* not an opcode on its own, used to build others */
Although the above code works fine, I would suggest to put
BPF_FETCH definition before BPF_XCHG and BPF_CMPXCHG, which
makes more sense intuitively.
>
> /* Register numbers */
> enum {
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
[...] \
> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 760ae333a5ed..538b95472c8f 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@
> #define BPF_EXIT 0x90 /* function return */
>
> /* atomic op type fields (stored in immediate) */
> -#define BPF_FETCH 0x01 /* fetch previous value into src reg */
> +#define BPF_XCHG (0xe0 | BPF_FETCH) /* atomic exchange */
> +#define BPF_CMPXCHG (0xf0 | BPF_FETCH) /* atomic compare-and-write */
> +#define BPF_FETCH 0x01 /* not an opcode on its own, used to build others */
same here.
>
> /* Register numbers */
> enum {
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-16 6:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-15 12:18 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/11] Atomics for eBPF Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/11] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of ModR/M for *(reg + off) Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2] libbpf: Expose libbpf ringbufer epoll_fd Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 18:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/11] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of REX byte Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/11] bpf: x86: Factor out a lookup table for some ALU opcodes Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/11] bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 14:05 ` Björn Töpel
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/11] bpf: Move BPF_STX reserved field check into BPF_STX verifier code Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/11] bpf: Add BPF_FETCH field / create atomic_fetch_add instruction Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/11] bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg Brendan Jackman
2020-12-16 6:47 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/11] bpf: Pull out a macro for interpreting atomic ALU operations Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/11] bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions Brendan Jackman
2020-12-16 6:53 ` Yonghong Song
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/11] bpf: Add tests for new BPF atomic operations Brendan Jackman
2020-12-15 12:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/11] bpf: Document new atomic instructions Brendan Jackman
2020-12-16 7:08 ` Yonghong Song
2020-12-16 11:44 ` Brendan Jackman
2020-12-16 15:25 ` Yonghong Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eac87f05-708b-0ac7-4c76-6babd9ab5f56@fb.com \
--to=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®