04/10/2019 17:39, Jerin Jacob: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:35 PM Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I agree with Konstantin here. > > Thomas, > > Just confirm the following: > > While we continue to have 'advanced' discussion on avoiding code duplication > etc > and it will take a couple of months to converge(if at all it happens) > > Just to be clear, I assume, you are OK to merge this code for 19.11(If > no more technical comment on the patch). > > I am only afraid of, our typical last-minute surprise pattern and > followed by back and forth open ended discussions. > > i.e > > # Code submitted before the proposal window > # Gets ACK from Maintainer > # New non-technical concerns start just before RC1
I hope you are not against discussing the real good questions, even if they come a month after the first submission. I don't care merging such patch in 19.11, but I would have preferred such questions were open when introducing this new library (for x86). About your urge of having this code merged, please can you explain what is your usage?
