[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1555321893.44its0xa9r.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:29:35 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net,
Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 08/19] bpf: insert explicit zero extension
insn when hardware doesn't do it implicitly
Hi Jiong,
Jiong Wang wrote:
> After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really
> need zero extension on dst_reg.
Thanks for implementing this -- this is very helpful on architectures
without sub-register instructions, especially in comparison with legacy
BPF, since the move to eBPF resulted in lot more instructions being
generated.
I have a small nit below on the overall approach...
>
> It is then for all back-ends to decide how to use such information to
> eliminate unnecessary zero extension code-gen during JIT compilation.
>
> One approach is:
> 1. Verifier insert explicit zero extension for those instructions that
> need zero extension.
> 2. All JIT back-ends do NOT generate zero extension for sub-register
> write any more.
Is it possible to instead give a hint to the JIT back-ends on the
instructions needing zero-extension? That would help in case of
architectures that have single/more-optimal instruction for zero
extension, compared to having to emit 2 instructions with the current
approach.
- Naveen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists