[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201129013615.mf45ihcio2abuvlu@ast-mbp>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:36:15 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 11/13] bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 09:39:10PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/20 9:57 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > This adds instructions for
> >
> > atomic[64]_[fetch_]and
> > atomic[64]_[fetch_]or
> > atomic[64]_[fetch_]xor
> >
> > All these operations are isomorphic enough to implement with the same
> > verifier, interpreter, and x86 JIT code, hence being a single commit.
> >
> > The main interesting thing here is that x86 doesn't directly support
> > the fetch_ version these operations, so we need to generate a CMPXCHG
> > loop in the JIT. This requires the use of two temporary registers,
> > IIUC it's safe to use BPF_REG_AX and x86's AUX_REG for this purpose.
>
> similar to previous xsub (atomic[64]_sub), should we implement
> xand, xor, xxor in llvm?
yes. please. Unlike atomic_fetch_sub that can be handled by llvm.
atomic_fetch_or/xor/and has to be seen as separate instructions
because JITs will translate them as loop.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists