Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>,
	<ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: <kafai@fb.com>, <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	<Tony.Ambardar@gmail.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] bpf/tests: Add tests for ALU operations implemented with function calls
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:52:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba3656eb-500b-9f14-1c97-d27868f1c3e6@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210728170502.351010-9-johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>



On 7/28/21 10:04 AM, Johan Almbladh wrote:
> 32-bit JITs may implement complex ALU64 instructions using function calls.
> The new tests check aspects related to this, such as register clobbering
> and register argument re-ordering.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com>
> ---
>   lib/test_bpf.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 138 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> index eb61088a674f..1115e39630ce 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> @@ -1916,6 +1916,144 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
>   		{ },
>   		{ { 0, -1 } }
>   	},
> +	{
> +		/*
> +		 * Register (non-)clobbering test, in the case where a 32-bit
> +		 * JIT implements complex ALU64 operations via function calls.
> +		 */
> +		"INT: Register clobbering, R1 updated",
> +		.u.insns_int = {
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 0),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R1, 123456789),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R2, 2),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R3, 3),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R4, 4),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R5, 5),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R6, 6),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R7, 7),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R8, 8),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R9, 9),
> +			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_DIV, R1, 123456789),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R0, 0, 10),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R1, 1, 9),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R2, 2, 8),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R3, 3, 7),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R4, 4, 6),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R5, 5, 5),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R6, 6, 4),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R7, 7, 3),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R8, 8, 2),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R9, 9, 1),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +		},
> +		INTERNAL,
> +		{ },
> +		{ { 0, 1 } }
> +	},
> +	{
> +		"INT: Register clobbering, R2 updated",
> +		.u.insns_int = {
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 0),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R1, 1),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R2, 2 * 123456789),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R3, 3),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R4, 4),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R5, 5),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R6, 6),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R7, 7),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R8, 8),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R9, 9),
> +			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_DIV, R2, 123456789),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R0, 0, 10),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R1, 1, 9),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R2, 2, 8),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R3, 3, 7),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R4, 4, 6),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R5, 5, 5),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R6, 6, 4),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R7, 7, 3),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R8, 8, 2),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, R9, 9, 1),
> +			BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +		},
> +		INTERNAL,
> +		{ },
> +		{ { 0, 1 } }
> +	},

It looks like the above two tests, "R1 updated" and "R2 updated" should 
be very similar and the only difference is one immediate is 123456789 
and another is 2 * 123456789. But for generated code, they all just have
the final immediate. Could you explain what the difference in terms of
jit for the above two tests?

> +	{
> +		/*
> +		 * Test 32-bit JITs that implement complex ALU64 operations as
> +		 * function calls R0 = f(R1, R2), and must re-arrange operands.
> +		 */
> +#define NUMER 0xfedcba9876543210ULL
> +#define DENOM 0x0123456789abcdefULL
> +		"ALU64_DIV X: Operand register permutations",
> +		.u.insns_int = {
> +			/* R0 / R2 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R0, R2),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R0, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R1 / R0 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R1, R0),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R1, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R0 / R1 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R0, R1),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R0, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R2 / R0 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R2, R0),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R2, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R2 / R1 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R2, R1),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R2, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R1 / R2 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R1, R2),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R1, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, 1),

Do we need this BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, 1)?
First, if we have it, and next "BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R1, R1)"
generates incorrect value and exit and then you will get
exit value 1, which will signal the test success.

Second, if you don't have this R0 = 1, R0 will be DENOM
and you will be fine.

> +			/* R1 / R1 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, NUMER),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R1, R1),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R1, 1, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R2 / R2 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R2, R2),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R2, 1, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* R3 / R4 */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R3, NUMER),
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R4, DENOM),
> +			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_DIV, R3, R4),
> +			BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, R3, NUMER / DENOM, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +			/* Successful return */
> +			BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, 1),
> +			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
> +		},
> +		INTERNAL,
> +		{ },
> +		{ { 0, 1 } },
> +#undef NUMER
> +#undef DENOM
> +	},
>   	{
>   		"check: missing ret",
>   		.u.insns = {
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-28 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-28 17:04 [PATCH 00/14] bpf/tests: Extend the eBPF test suite Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 01/14] bpf/tests: Add BPF_JMP32 test cases Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 22:31   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 21:30     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 02/14] bpf/tests: Add BPF_MOV tests for zero and sign extension Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 22:36   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 03/14] bpf/tests: Fix typos in test case descriptions Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 22:43   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 04/14] bpf/tests: Add more tests of ALU32 and ALU64 bitwise operations Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 22:53   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 05/14] bpf/tests: Add more ALU32 tests for BPF_LSH/RSH/ARSH Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 22:57   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 06/14] bpf/tests: Add more BPF_LSH/RSH/ARSH tests for ALU64 Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 23:30   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 12:34     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29 15:39       ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 07/14] bpf/tests: Add more ALU64 BPF_MUL tests Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 23:32   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 21:21     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 08/14] bpf/tests: Add tests for ALU operations implemented with function calls Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 23:52   ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2021-07-29 21:17     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29 22:54       ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 09/14] bpf/tests: Add word-order tests for load/store of double words Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 23:54   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 10/14] bpf/tests: Add branch conversion JIT test Johan Almbladh
2021-07-28 23:58   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 12:45     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29 15:46       ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29  0:55   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 13:24     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29 15:50       ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:04 ` [PATCH 11/14] bpf/tests: Add test for 32-bit context pointer argument passing Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29  0:09   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 13:29     ` Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29 15:50       ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:05 ` [PATCH 12/14] bpf/tests: Add tests for atomic operations Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29  0:36   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:05 ` [PATCH 13/14] bpf/tests: Add tests for BPF_CMPXCHG Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29  0:45   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-28 17:05 ` [PATCH 14/14] bpf/tests: Add tail call test suite Johan Almbladh
2021-07-29  2:56   ` Yonghong Song
2021-07-29 20:44     ` Johan Almbladh

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=ba3656eb-500b-9f14-1c97-d27868f1c3e6@fb.com \
    --to=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=Tony.Ambardar@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 08/14] bpf/tests: Add tests for ALU operations implemented with function calls' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox