From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Honnappa Nagarahalli" <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] eBPF arm64 JIT support
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:05:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191970A12@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1PzGM4WJMeEoKL8KSdNQQ6S-BOAO_tqqHAYYaWYykm7vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi everyone,
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:21 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 03/09/2019 12:59, jerinj@marvell.com:
> > > Added eBPF arm64 JIT support to improve the eBPF program performance
> > > on arm64.
> > >
> > > lib/librte_bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c | 1451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > I am concerned about duplicating the BPF JIT effort in DPDK and Linux.
> > Could we try to pull the Linux JIT?
> > Is the license the only issue?
>
> That's one issue.
>
> >
> > After a quick discussion, it seems the Linux authors are OK to arrange
> > their JIT code for sharing with userspace projects.
>
> I did a clean room implementation considering some optimization for
> DPDK etc(Like if stack is not used then don't push stack etc)
> and wherever Linux can be improved, I have submitted the patch also to
> Linux as well.(Some more pending as well)
>
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/504792e07a44844f24e9d79913e4a2f8373cd332
>
> And Linux has a framework for instruction generation for debugging
> etc. So We can not copy and paste the code
> from Linux as is.
>
> My view to keep a different code base optimize for DPDK use cases and
> library requirements(for example, tail call is not supported in DPDK).
> For arm64/x86 case the code is done so it is not worth sync with
> Linux. For new architecture, it can be if possible.
>
> Konstantin,
> Your thoughts?
>
My thought would be that if we have JIT eBPF compiler already in DPDK
for one arch (x86) there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't allow it for different arch (arm).
About having a common code-base with Linux eBPF JITs implementation -
I think it is a very good idea,
but I don’t' think it could be achieved without significant effort.
DPDK and Linux JIT code-generators differ quite a bit.
So my suggestion - let's go ahead and integrate Jerin patch into 19.11,
meanwhile start talking with linux guys how common JIT code-base could be achieved.
Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-03 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-03 10:59 jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/8] bpf/arm64: add build infrastructure jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/8] bpf/arm64: add prologue and epilogue jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/8] bpf/arm64: add basic arithmetic operations jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/8] bpf/arm64: add logical operations jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/8] bpf/arm64: add byte swap operations jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 6/8] bpf/arm64: add load and store operations jerinj
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 7/8] bpf/arm64: add atomic-exchange-and-add operation jerinj
2019-10-18 13:16 ` David Marchand
2019-09-03 10:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 8/8] bpf/arm64: add branch operation jerinj
2019-09-24 17:03 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] eBPF arm64 JIT support Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-12 12:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-03 12:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-03 13:07 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-03 15:05 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2019-10-04 4:55 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2019-10-04 9:54 ` Steve Capper
2019-10-04 10:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-04 14:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-10-04 14:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-05 0:00 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-10-05 14:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-07 11:57 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-24 4:22 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-04-06 11:05 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-04 15:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-07 12:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-07 13:00 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-07 18:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-07 19:29 ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-07 20:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-10-08 6:57 ` Jerin Jacob
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191970A12@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gavin.hu@arm.com \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).