Hi everyone, > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:21 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > 03/09/2019 12:59, jer...@marvell.com: > > > Added eBPF arm64 JIT support to improve the eBPF program performance > > > on arm64. > > > > > > lib/librte_bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c | 1451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > I am concerned about duplicating the BPF JIT effort in DPDK and Linux. > > Could we try to pull the Linux JIT? > > Is the license the only issue? > > That's one issue. > > > > > After a quick discussion, it seems the Linux authors are OK to arrange > > their JIT code for sharing with userspace projects. > > I did a clean room implementation considering some optimization for > DPDK etc(Like if stack is not used then don't push stack etc) > and wherever Linux can be improved, I have submitted the patch also to > Linux as well.(Some more pending as well) > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/504792e07a44844f24e9d79913e4a2f8373cd332 > > And Linux has a framework for instruction generation for debugging > etc. So We can not copy and paste the code > from Linux as is. > > My view to keep a different code base optimize for DPDK use cases and > library requirements(for example, tail call is not supported in DPDK). > For arm64/x86 case the code is done so it is not worth sync with > Linux. For new architecture, it can be if possible. > > Konstantin, > Your thoughts? >
My thought would be that if we have JIT eBPF compiler already in DPDK for one arch (x86) there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't allow it for different arch (arm). About having a common code-base with Linux eBPF JITs implementation - I think it is a very good idea, but I don’t' think it could be achieved without significant effort. DPDK and Linux JIT code-generators differ quite a bit. So my suggestion - let's go ahead and integrate Jerin patch into 19.11, meanwhile start talking with linux guys how common JIT code-base could be achieved. Konstantin
