Summary:
V8->V9:
- cleanup tests
V7->V8:
- addressed feedback from David:
- switched to range-based 'for' loops
- fixed formatting of tests
V6->V7:
- rebased and adjusted AsmPrinter args
- CamelCased .td, fixed formatting, cleaned up names, removed unused patterns
- diffstat: 3 files changed, 203 insertions(+), 227 deletions(-)
V5->V6:
- addressed feedback from Chandler:
- reinstated full verbose standard banner in all files
- fixed variables that were not in CamelCase
- fixed names of #ifdef in header files
- removed redundant braces in if/else chains with single statements
- fixed comments
- removed trailing empty line
- dropped debug annotations from tests
- diffstat of these changes:
46 files changed, 456 insertions(+), 469 deletions(-)
V4->V5:
- fix setLoadExtAction() interface
- clang-formated all where it made sense
V3->V4:
- added CODE_OWNERS entry for BPF backend
V2->V3:
- fix metadata in tests
V1->V2:
- addressed feedback from Tom and Matt
- removed top level change to configure (now everything via 'experimental-backend')
- reworked error reporting via DiagnosticInfo (similar to R600)
- added few more tests
- added cmake build
- added Triple::bpf
- tested on linux and darwin
V1 cover letter:
---------------------
recently linux gained "universal in-kernel virtual machine" which is called
eBPF or extended BPF. The name comes from "Berkeley Packet Filter", since
new instruction set is based on it.
This patch adds a new backend that emits extended BPF instruction set.
The concept and development are covered by the following articles:
http://lwn.net/Articles/599755/http://lwn.net/Articles/575531/http://lwn.net/Articles/603983/http://lwn.net/Articles/606089/http://lwn.net/Articles/612878/
One of use cases: dtrace/systemtap alternative.
bpf syscall manpage:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b4fc1a460f3017e958e6a8ea560ea0afd91bf6fe
instruction set description and differences vs classic BPF:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/networking/filter.txt
Short summary of instruction set:
- 64-bit registers
R0 - return value from in-kernel function, and exit value for BPF program
R1 - R5 - arguments from BPF program to in-kernel function
R6 - R9 - callee saved registers that in-kernel function will preserve
R10 - read-only frame pointer to access stack
- two-operand instructions like +, -, *, mov, load/store
- implicit prologue/epilogue (invisible stack pointer)
- no floating point, no simd
Short history of extended BPF in kernel:
interpreter in 3.15, x64 JIT in 3.16, arm64 JIT, verifier, bpf syscall in 3.18, more to come in the future.
It's a very small and simple backend.
There is no support for global variables, arbitrary function calls, floating point, varargs,
exceptions, indirect jumps, arbitrary pointer arithmetic, alloca, etc.
From C front-end point of view it's very restricted. It's done on purpose, since kernel
rejects all programs that it cannot prove safe. It rejects programs with loops
and with memory accesses via arbitrary pointers. When kernel accepts the program it is
guaranteed that program will terminate and will not crash the kernel.
This patch implements all 'must have' bits. There are several things on TODO list,
so this is not the end of development.
Most of the code is a boiler plate code, copy-pasted from other backends.
Only odd things are lack or < and <= instructions, specialized load_byte intrinsics
and 'compare and goto' as single instruction.
Current instruction set is fixed, but more instructions can be added in the future.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subscribers: majnemer, chandlerc, echristo, joerg, pete, rengolin, kristof.beyls, arsenm, t.p.northover, tstellarAMD, aemerson, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6494
llvm-svn: 227008
Notably, I'm reviewing this stuff already, and this makes it clear I'm
on the hook for it.
I'm relying on Eric Christopher and Michael Spencer to help with Support
when there are platform specific issues, but Chris wants a single point
of contact, and I'm happy with that.
llvm-svn: 168164
LLVMdev and not hearing any major objections. Although it did spark a nice
discussion regarding what it means to own something in LLVM.
llvm-svn: 167881
hopefully make it more visible. Adjust the web-docs to have a link to
this file rather than the list itself. I described code owners as also
being gatekeepers for their part of the code, which I think is true but
isn't in the code owner explanation on the web page.
llvm-svn: 160776
Tim Northover