Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] riscv, bpf: Relax restrictions on Zbb instructions

From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>,
	Stefan O'Rear <sorear@fastmail.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>,
	Manu Bretelle <chantr4@gmail.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] riscv, bpf: Relax restrictions on Zbb instructions
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:25:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cyr7rgdn.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed3debc9-f2a9-41fb-9cf9-dc6419de5c01@huaweicloud.com>

Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes:

> On 2024/3/29 6:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 03:34:31PM -0400, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, at 8:49 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>>>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> This patch relaxes the restrictions on the Zbb instructions. The hardware
>>>> is capable of recognizing the Zbb instructions independently, eliminating
>>>> the need for reliance on kernel compile configurations.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense to me.
>> 
>> It doesn't make sense to me either. Of course the hardware's capability
>> to understand an instruction is independent of whether or not a
>> toolchain is capable of actually emitting the instruction.
>> 
>>> RISCV_ISA_ZBB is defined as:
>>>
>>>             Adds support to dynamically detect the presence of the ZBB
>>>             extension (basic bit manipulation) and enable its usage.
>>>
>>> In other words, RISCV_ISA_ZBB=n should disable everything that attempts
>>> to detect Zbb at runtime. It is mostly relevant for code size reduction,
>>> which is relevant for BPF since if RISCV_ISA_ZBB=n all rvzbb_enabled()
>>> checks can be constant-folded.
>
> Thanks for review. My initial thought was the same as yours, but after 
> discussions [0] and test verifications, the hardware can indeed 
> recognize the zbb instruction even if the kernel has not enabled 
> CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB. As Conor mentioned, we are just acting as a JIT to 
> emit zbb instruction here. Maybe is_hw_zbb_capable() will be better?

I still think Lehui's patch is correct; Building a kernel that can boot
on multiple platforms (w/ or w/o Zbb support) and not having Zbb insn in
the kernel proper, and iff Zbb is available at run-time the BPF JIT will
emit Zbb.

For these kind of optimizations, (IMO) it's better to let the BPF JIT
decide at run-time.

Björn

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv