[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03ebc63f-7b96-4a70-ad10-a4ffc1d5b1cc@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:13:07 +0800
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>, Pu Lehui
<pulehui@...weicloud.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau
<martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song
<yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh
<kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo
<haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt
<palmer@...belt.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Luke Nelson
<luke.r.nels@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next v3 4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb
instructions
On 2024/1/28 1:16, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com> writes:
>
>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>>
>> Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
>> improve performance of RV64 JIT. Meanwhile, a runtime deteted helper is
>> added to check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
>>
>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0]
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>> index e30501b46f8f..51f6d214086f 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
>> return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
>> +{
>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) && riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB);
>
> Hmm, I'm thinking about the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) semantics
> for a kernel JIT compiler.
>
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) affects the kernel compiler flags.
> Should it be enough to just have the run-time check? Should a kernel
> built w/o Zbb be able to emit Zbb from the JIT?
>
Not enough, because riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB) is a
platform capability check, and the other one is a kernel image
capability check. We can pass the check
riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB) when
CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB=n. And my local test prove it.
>
> Björn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists