From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DCEA2F6B
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2019 08:58:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE471BFD6;
	Tue,  8 Oct 2019 08:58:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com
 [209.85.166.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866ED1BFC9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2019 08:58:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id b19so34292616iob.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 23:58:28 -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=uLj8Z1+X+zvIpLN1Vrr6+McHqwBBmfAHBrlaBO/z5rs=;
 b=WywlOrVEPlq/ztyQVKHjFylvc1gJTexYLD0ZLuMu6U27QqbEh5jhwHZQPuS5Wr1NvZ
 uAP/DNwWEn09hoU1n0S77Hx4URuyWayX8/sbVqmvpoj8VBP7HA9TilixmguZtFw9cKYw
 DvMmsaybrFYEHCICWWWfHgMVci0qkIykYDASc+apXX3WyHErRxnDyWgJAK2YY2a/FWrZ
 KC+oD/4KNxAN2+cwUel/9Sjl4nUckNAmmgWbhtS+NY/OPr/DaPfG02jgjc5LEo06LsRm
 TFTWkMiYyGsDU72rnQ/b86eqmwTdGvOF4scdjSRFcBoydj5h3d6r/iW65/5E5TE8kCeZ
 GK2A==
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=uLj8Z1+X+zvIpLN1Vrr6+McHqwBBmfAHBrlaBO/z5rs=;
 b=EIfixDX+Ry/tAt63C6D8SKntoWLaCCNeYb0P0nNCOK/Hi2HcjJcI7SMfOEuYNJ9SEl
 4PyWq6TvJgp9redi0tsOQgkss1sAn3P1EtGZHX9+ByAe1JJq3P5D2D7M5znITMmFzn/f
 x0ZqW+BOSijY/LGdn8+Gj5eWyatdokJhYyL2/mLrNIRbstbvg7sgqD/tI+ugX/uAqJpq
 WBv1xHSvaIsEHjW/0ueDyKsyMOvkaKbmaqHsT1HWm7YB4IsXmiD7VM3Rs3KxgvOi8IUz
 zUZEjSKBjWLT+2oPI+AqxDc/Cyos+B1utiIlYp4FBnth+2+Oliqr0VLFQcz8WwRaRzSj
 jYgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjr2dQGeSOsMVGb7zvG1+XYqDSdGTsVEsvGbP5ifkMkoPjjSFJ
 rdl720CevkBUz9/i/6lx/2BapNz0LTdQIswhDWI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxX2SfPc7ywfBaV9FEjyrVdQYddFmDeShFSWEWp99khS17vPY79UYdDkFXU8b04+xfgqxMhwwFy/EGMqDkjquU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9f15:: with SMTP id q21mr15721436iot.130.1570517907601; 
 Mon, 07 Oct 2019 23:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190903105938.33231-1-jerinj@marvell.com>
 <2692726.gUGBZ5dN0q@xps>
 <CALBAE1O4=RefWMnrrh9PQ23e3MHAO7Nqe3SrNNQV8cb8fd-20w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4393352.hqBF0BEQvh@xps>
In-Reply-To: <4393352.hqBF0BEQvh@xps>
From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:27:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CALBAE1OkG197d0DGFvZMdGZDRKBVbdFT+e5C9ZJ21b6ZNLNs9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>, 
 dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
 Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, 8 Oct, 2019, 1:45 AM Thomas Monjalon, <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 07/10/2019 21:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct, 2019, 11:35 PM Thomas Monjalon, <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > let's restart from the beginning by answering simple questions:
> > > - what are the use cases of BPF in DPDK?
> >
> > If something needs to be dynamically controlled then eBPF can be used,
> > couple of use cases
> >
> > # packet filtering
> > # debugging
> > # function call tracing
> > # There are some Lua JIT based dataplane implementations. Which can be
> > replaced with eBPF with JIT.
> >
> > - how much we'll benefit from sharing code with Linux?
> >
> > I have mentioned some of the performance constraint in the other thread.
> > Moreover I don't believe it is not easy task for Linux eBPF to run as
> > userspace and I not sure who is going to do that
>
> I was asking the benefits here:
> - sharing optimizations in both projects
>

Yes. But even if it is different code base it is possible to share the
optimization.

- get verifier support
>

Verifier support already available in the library.

What else?
>

I see only avoiding code duplication and getting new feature like cBPF.


> > - what can we lose in a single JIT implementation?
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't understood this question?
>
> I mean what are the drawbacks of using a Linux implementation?
> How performance constraints are differents, etc?
>

Mention the details in the below thread. Waiting for feedback from Kernel
maintainer.

http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-October/146004.html

http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-October/146063.html


>
>
> Note: as a lot of people, I don't really know BPF,
> so these are real questions to help understanding the challenge.


>
>