[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311066368.2375.13.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:06:08 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Matt Evans <matt@...abs.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: filter: BPF 'JIT' compiler for PPC64
Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 17:55 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt a écrit :
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 08:51 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > > + case BPF_S_ANC_CPU:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > + /*
> > > + * PACA ptr is r13:
> > > + * raw_smp_processor_id() = local_paca->paca_index
> > > + */
> >
> > This could break if one day linux supports more than 65536 cpus :)
> >
> > > + PPC_LHZ_OFFS(r_A, 13,
> > > + offsetof(struct paca_struct, paca_index));
> > > +#else
> > > + PPC_LI(r_A, 0);
> > > +#endif
> > > + break;
>
> As would our implementation of raw_smp_processor_id() and our
> spinlocks :-) I don't think we need to fix that -now- but you are
> welcome to add something like a
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(local_paca->paca_index) != 2); as a reminder :-)
Please Matt add to your next version this check. I dont think I have to
submit a one line patch later...
On x86_64, cpu_number field is already 32bit, we have some time before
it becomes 64bit ;)
We probably should add some extra check to make sure segment doesnt
change (%gs on x86_64, r13 on ppc64) on a future linux version.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists