From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DE4A2F18 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:07:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A027A1C0AA; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:07:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com (mail-io1-f67.google.com [209.85.166.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C94E1C07B for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:07:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b19so5340745iob.4 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:07:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u1AWymUXachkD9e/ZajfoQgc4CK4rg9KY1xhin/2kWk=; b=K/JhjHsJGZYwzzQAYYd0yoO6jvh+l+Lj6dvmDZt6YvGsZthhazWHXqpK4SlGTLDRRf L8WmgeezIPezp8RnTZiqvJGBcsjbRxmDR4XkSW6xv/JdxizYEB2m/VWCjMtB4NHmLMUw SwBrI2TsRfxr16dbkYJqLlb6ajXHb3wTu1QEihreqi49UW/9zzQEHTniNw/dncYrMrc2 bYCmAKZzPiZbFaFCX0o/VpFEXIoKCzG29tjeU6fc2UPdrdf/tdOqy+VaZ22DoTgNDtJM ufyyyjpL0wd7X+C+qiHs2Ks60bwMMC7Os5NslAvlE/6fyBMtrv9VPE66yYvka9CY+7EY 48bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u1AWymUXachkD9e/ZajfoQgc4CK4rg9KY1xhin/2kWk=; b=aF0f0HpH0mxIM9cR0yvYn3oUvTgI+lKM7LXBMm4kBjwFwj0qQXeuvmxbEOv2sPCgIM PPXceRmxV+qa/iCOI3Sxaof2iHXKEa8DCf+hJpAz2m3KWa4bykOuEj+xLZsjP1IDpQPe +u+ciINbFeo6SgiV/foth7D/5DBOpMnrhpy+ahYw7rsP8nmfFJx5umozfPjYxQvHf2nk aIX/VVCENggoJ/Y9rt2zHUD2GmMbR/HLZ8CUhXgTTGTb6iCvUvZop6AyyvlFPE+UzDSe V9ybLLb5FvUu09JkmY+EpNdj4XjkGv0oUi6U0duAPNIROEWJxLHxvXRr/SzsFQkhhvh0 clrw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUpVEaYqGI5XcShZfQ8HPWcwGdvYYZmZFnpsNc0HRXdBRcwtEbK Y8ne4aBTtJYXZry03tSqW+FGNdlwUR6x95mLBZIudaRsNpKq8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzQe+o0a9gmmnZozka6GAsSv4zkWORTSS8uJg5alGuxv6VHomURh8pordKfMI09z3J2hcRtD8X6Wx/i9YPAuvU= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b414:: with SMTP id d20mr8219381iof.162.1570108067506; Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190903105938.33231-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <1795075.Xzk8EHHx5G@xps> In-Reply-To: <1795075.Xzk8EHHx5G@xps> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:37:36 +0530 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Jerin Jacob , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , dpdk-dev , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Gavin Hu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] eBPF arm64 JIT support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:21 PM Thomas Monjalon 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? > >