[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D174760F3@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:52:30 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Alexei Starovoitov' <ast@...mgrid.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 00/26] BPF syscall, maps, verifier,
samples, llvm
From: Of Alexei Starovoitov
> one more RFC...
>
> Major difference vs previous set is a new 'load 64-bit immediate' eBPF insn.
> Which is first 16-byte instruction. It shows how eBPF ISA can be extended
> while maintaining backward compatibility, but mainly it cleans up eBPF
> program access to maps and improves run-time performance.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to follow the scheme used by a lot of cpus
and add a 'load high' instruction (follow with 'add' or 'or').
It still takes 16 bytes to load a 64bit immediate value, but the instruction
size remains constant.
There is nothing to stop any JIT software detecting the instruction pair.
David
--
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