Re: [PATCH 2/3] bpf powerpc: implement support for tail calls

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 09/26/2016 10:56 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2016/09/24 03:30AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 09/23/2016 10:35 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > > Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF
> > > > programs. This can be achieved either by:
> > > > (1) retaining the stack setup by the first eBPF program and having all
> > > > subsequent eBPF programs re-using it, or,
> > > > (2) by unwinding/tearing down the stack and having each eBPF program
> > > > deal with its own stack as it sees fit.
> > > >
> > > > To ensure that this does not create loops, there is a limit to how many
> > > > tail calls can be done (currently 32). This requires the JIT'ed code to
> > > > maintain a count of the number of tail calls done so far.
> > > >
> > > > Approach (1) is simple, but requires every eBPF program to have (almost)
> > > > the same prologue/epilogue, regardless of whether they need it. This is
> > > > inefficient for small eBPF programs which may not sometimes need a
> > > > prologue at all. As such, to minimize impact of tail call
> > > > implementation, we use approach (2) here which needs each eBPF program
> > > > in the chain to use its own prologue/epilogue. This is not ideal when
> > > > many tail calls are involved and when all the eBPF programs in the chain
> > > > have similar prologue/epilogue. However, the impact is restricted to
> > > > programs that do tail calls. Individual eBPF programs are not affected.
> > > >
> > > > We maintain the tail call count in a fixed location on the stack and
> > > > updated tail call count values are passed in through this. The very
> > > > first eBPF program in a chain sets this up to 0 (the first 2
> > > > instructions). Subsequent tail calls skip the first two eBPF JIT
> > > > instructions to maintain the count. For programs that don't do tail
> > > > calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks for adding support, Naveen, that's really great! I think 2) seems
> > > fine as well in this context as prologue size can vary quite a bit here,
> > > and depending on program types likelihood of tail call usage as well (but
> > > I wouldn't expect deep nesting). Thanks a lot!
> >
> > Great stuff. In this circumstances approach 2 makes sense to me as well.
>
> Alexie, Daniel,
> Thanks for the quick review!

The patches would go via Michael's tree (same way as with the JIT itself
in the past), right?