Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

s64ilp32: ebpf_jit: Fix the incorrect jump addresses and index offsets in tail_call #16

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2024

Conversation

cp0613
Copy link
Contributor

@cp0613 cp0613 commented Apr 7, 2024

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

  • s64lp64
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
  • s64ilp32
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
  • s32ilp32
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation.

…s in tail_call

This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf.
At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed.
Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32:

- s64lp64

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s64ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

- s32ilp32

```
...
test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed]
test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS
test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS
test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS
test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS
test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS
test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS
test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS
test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS
test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS
test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS
test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed]
...
test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED
```

Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number
that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32
can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT
execution situation.

Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
@guoren83 guoren83 merged commit 0854ff8 into XUANTIE-RV:linux-6.6 Apr 7, 2024
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants