lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6] bpf, x86_32: add eBPF JIT compiler for ia32
From
Date
On 05/03/2018 08:10 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
> The JIT compiler emits ia32 bit instructions. Currently, It supports eBPF
> only. Classic BPF is supported because of the conversion by BPF core.
>
> Almost all instructions from eBPF ISA supported except the following:
> BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K
> BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X
> BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K
> BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X
> BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W
> BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_DW
>
> It doesn't support BPF_JMP|BPF_CALL with BPF_PSEUDO_CALL at the moment.
>
> IA32 has few general purpose registers, EAX|EDX|ECX|EBX|ESI|EDI. I use
> EAX|EDX|ECX|EBX as temporary registers to simulate instructions in eBPF
> ISA, and allocate ESI|EDI to BPF_REG_AX for constant blinding, all others
> eBPF registers, R0-R10, are simulated through scratch space on stack.
>
> The reasons behind the hardware registers allocation policy are:
> 1:MUL need EAX:EDX, shift operation need ECX, so they aren't fit
> for general eBPF 64bit register simulation.
> 2:We need at least 4 registers to simulate most eBPF ISA operations
> on registers operands instead of on register&memory operands.
> 3:We need to put BPF_REG_AX on hardware registers, or constant blinding
> will degrade jit performance heavily.
>
> Tested on PC (Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5200U CPU).
> Testing results on i5-5200U:
> 1) test_bpf: Summary: 349 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [319/341 JIT'ed]
> 2) test_progs: Summary: 83 PASSED, 0 FAILED.
> 3) test_lpm: OK
> 4) test_lru_map: OK
> 5) test_verifier: Summary: 828 PASSED, 0 FAILED.
>
> Above tests are all done in following two conditions separately:
> 1:bpf_jit_enable=1 and bpf_jit_harden=0
> 2:bpf_jit_enable=1 and bpf_jit_harden=2
>
> Below are some numbers for this jit implementation:
> Note:
> I run test_progs in kselftest 100 times continuously for every condition,
> the numbers are in format: total/times=avg.
> The numbers that test_bpf reports show almost the same relation.
>
> a:jit_enable=0 and jit_harden=0 b:jit_enable=1 and jit_harden=0
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4:15622/100=156 test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4:10674/100=106
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6:9130/100=91 test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6:4855/100=48
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv4:240198/100=2401 test_xdp:PASS:ipv4:138912/100=1389
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv6:137326/100=1373 test_xdp:PASS:ipv6:68542/100=685
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4:61100/100=611 test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4:37302/100=373
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6:101000/100=1010 test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6:55030/100=550
>
> c:jit_enable=1 and jit_harden=2
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4:10558/100=105
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6:5092/100=50
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv4:131902/100=1319
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv6:77932/100=779
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4:38924/100=389
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6:57520/100=575
>
> The numbers show we get 30%~50% improvement.
>
> See Documentation/networking/filter.txt for more information.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>

Applied to bpf-next, thanks Wang!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-03 18:26    [W:0.343 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site