[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875yfwrw7q.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2022 14:42:01 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, olsajiri@...il.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, toke@...hat.com,
David.Laight@...lab.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] bpf: Yet another approach to fix the BPF dispatcher
thing
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> Hi!
>
> Even thought the __attribute__((patchable_function_entry())) solution to the
> BPF dispatcher woes works, it turns out to not be supported by the whole range
> of ageing compilers we support. Specifically this attribute seems to be GCC-8
> and later.
>
> This is another approach -- using static_call() to rewrite the dispatcher
> function. I've compile tested this on:
>
> x86_64 (inline static-call support)
> i386 (out-of-line static-call support)
> aargh64 (no static-call support)
>
> A previous version was tested and found working by Bjorn.
>
> It is split in two patches; first reverting the current approach and then
> introducing the new for ease of review.
Took it for a spin on x86_64/KVM. For the series:
Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists