netdev - [PATCH 0/1] bpf: avoid unnecessary IPI in bpf_flush

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue,  1 Jun 2021 23:06:24 +0800
From:   Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>
To:     daniel@...earbox.net, 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: [PATCH 0/1] bpf: avoid unnecessary IPI in bpf_flush_icache

Hi,

When looking at the IPI counts in /proc/interrupts, there are always 
IPI1 happened on isolated cpus, even if the cpus had been idle with 
nohz. However, we should bother these cpus as less as possible.

The IPI1 were raised by flush_icache_range in bpf_int_jit_compile(). 
Futher, the calling of it was introduced in 3b8c9f1cdfc5("arm64: 
IPI each CPU after invalidating the I-cache for kernel mappings"), 
then I found the bpf case seems no need this operation. But I'm not 
sure, and still learning the JIT codes meanwhile. If I am wrong, 
please fix me, many thanks!

Yanfei Xu (1):
  bpf: avoid unnecessary IPI in bpf_flush_icache

 arch/arm64/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.27.0