Commits on Apr 7, 2024

1. s64ilp32: ebpf_jit: Fix the incorrect jump addresses and index offset… …

   …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]>

   

   cp0613 committed Apr 7, 2024
   Configuration menu

   • View commit details
   • Copy full SHA for 9003e7d
   • Browse repository at this point

   Copy the full SHA

   9003e7d View commit details

   Browse the repository at this point in the history