[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191202.150819.1676106400310976788.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:08:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bpf and local lock
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:52:38 -0800
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:14:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I am working on eliminating the explicit softirq disables around BPF
>> program invocation and replacing it with local lock usage instead.
>>
>> We would really need to at least have the non-RT stubs upstream to
>> propagate this cleanly, do you think this is possible?
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> seconding the same question: any chance local lock api can be sent upstream
> soon? If api skeleton can get in during this merge window we will have the next
> bpf-next/net-next cycle to sort out details. If not the bpf+rt would need to
> wait one more release. Not a big deal. Just trying to figure out a time line
> when can we start working on concrete bpf+rt patches.
FWIW, I have some simple patches I'm working on that start to annotate
the bpf function invocation call sites.
And as part of that I add the non-RT stubs plus some new interfaces I
think might be necessary.
I've been told Thomas is going to be offline for another week so I'll
just keep working on this and post when I have something concrete.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists