> With the below #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN spanning the entire
> bpf_int_jit_compile(), a user can then enable and compile
> eBPF JIT for big endian, even set the bpf_jit_enable to 1
> to turn it on, but it won't JIT anything, which is contrary
> to the expectation.
>
> This should rather be a hard de
On 08/19/2017 11:20 AM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index 61a0cb1..cc31f8b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ config ARM
select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER if (AEABI && !OABI_COMPAT)
select HAVE_ARCH
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
David, Russell, Kees and Daniel, Anything from your side? Is this
patch ready to land in net-next?
On 8/19/17 2:46 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 271 nsec
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6 297 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv4 961517 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
test_xdp:PASS:ipv6 615855 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
yes. this is expected. These two numbers are single run
Qemu is giving me different numbers different time.
Another stats.
With bpf_jit_enable set
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 271 nsec
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6 297 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv4 961517 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
test_xdp:PASS:ipv6 615855 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
test_l4l
Here are numbers.
Without any JIT enabled
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 1823 nsec
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6 1743 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv4 769022 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv6 15408 nsec
test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4 12441 nsec
test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6 18131 nsec
test_tcp_estats:PASS: 0 nsec
test_bpf_obj_id:PASS:get-fd-by-
On 8/19/17 12:59 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
not be able to compare them like kees this week.
Does that sound good?
yeah. that's fine. I was more interested in selftests/.../test_progs
numbers before/after, since they're more representative of real world
performance vs test_bpf.ko
Thats right.
One more thing I forgot to mention.
I think this is the first implementation of eBPF JIT on any 32 bit
arch, correct me if I am wrong. I think we can use this as a POC to
implement eBPF on other 32 bit arch as well like x86, depends on its
need I guess.
> impressive work.
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Thanks :)
I can't take all the credit. It was Daniel and Kees who helped me a lot.
I would have given up a long time ago without them.
>
> Any performance numbers with vs without JIT ?
Here is the mail from Kees on v1 of the patch.
For what it'
On 8/19/17 2:20 AM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
The JIT compiler emits ARM 32 bit instructions. Currently, It supports
eBPF only. Classic BPF is supported because of the conversion by BPF core.
This patch is essentially changing the current implementation of JIT compiler
of Berkeley Packet Filter from
The JIT compiler emits ARM 32 bit instructions. Currently, It supports
eBPF only. Classic BPF is supported because of the conversion by BPF core.
This patch is essentially changing the current implementation of JIT compiler
of Berkeley Packet Filter from classic to internal with almost all
instruc
11 matches
Mail list logo
