[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56cc1e25-25c3-a3da-64e3-8a1c539d685b@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 19:20:04 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>, ast@...nel.org,
zlim.lnx@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bpf: avoid unnecessary IPI in bpf_flush_icache
On 6/1/21 5:06 PM, Yanfei Xu wrote:
> It's no need to trigger IPI for keeping pipeline fresh in bpf case.
This needs a more concrete explanation/analysis on "why it is safe" to do so
rather than just saying that it is not needed.
> Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index f7b194878a99..5311f8be4ba4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -974,7 +974,7 @@ static int validate_code(struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>
> static inline void bpf_flush_icache(void *start, void *end)
> {
> - flush_icache_range((unsigned long)start, (unsigned long)end);
> + __flush_icache_range((unsigned long)start, (unsigned long)end);
> }
>
> struct arm64_jit_data {
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists