diff options
author | Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com> | 2019-05-24 23:25:15 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> | 2019-05-24 18:58:37 -0700 |
commit | a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356 (patch) | |
tree | fa54a491f3095c32cad767328a643211f6990951 /include/linux/bpf.h | |
parent | 7d134041a89610ae552501fc88652805addcdee4 (diff) | |
download | linux-a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356.tar.gz linux-a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356.tar.bz2 linux-a4b1d3c1ddf6cb441187b6c130a473c16a05a356.zip |
bpf: verifier: insert zero extension according to analysis result
After previous patches, verifier will mark a insn if it really needs zero
extension on dst_reg.
It is then for back-ends to decide how to use such information to eliminate
unnecessary zero extension code-gen during JIT compilation.
One approach is verifier insert explicit zero extension for those insns
that need zero extension in a generic way, JIT back-ends then do not
generate zero extension for sub-register write at default.
However, only those back-ends which do not have hardware zero extension
want this optimization. Back-ends like x86_64 and AArch64 have hardware
zero extension support that the insertion should be disabled.
This patch introduces new target hook "bpf_jit_needs_zext" which returns
false at default, meaning verifier zero extension insertion is disabled at
default. A back-end could override this hook to return true if it doesn't
have hardware support and want verifier insert zero extension explicitly.
Offload targets do not use this native target hook, instead, they could
get the optimization results using bpf_prog_offload_ops.finalize.
NOTE: arches could have diversified features, it is possible for one arch
to have hardware zero extension support for some sub-register write insns
but not for all. For example, PowerPC, SPARC have zero extended loads, but
not for alu32. So when verifier zero extension insertion enabled, these JIT
back-ends need to peephole insns to remove those zero extension inserted
for insn that actually has hardware zero extension support. The peephole
could be as simple as looking the next insn, if it is a special zero
extension insn then it is safe to eliminate it if the current insn has
hardware zero extension support.
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/linux/bpf.h')
-rw-r--r-- | include/linux/bpf.h | 1 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h index 4fb3aa2dc975..d98141edb74b 100644 --- a/include/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_aux { u32 id; u32 func_cnt; /* used by non-func prog as the number of func progs */ u32 func_idx; /* 0 for non-func prog, the index in func array for func prog */ + bool verifier_zext; /* Zero extensions has been inserted by verifier. */ bool offload_requested; struct bpf_prog **func; void *jit_data; /* JIT specific data. arch dependent */ |