Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Jiong Wang
Alexei Starovoitov writes: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: >> >> > On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:17, Alexei Starovoitov >> > wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:06:01PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:00, Alexei Starovoitov >> >>>

Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:17, Alexei Starovoitov > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:06:01PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: > >> > >>> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:00, Alexei Starovoitov > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019

Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Jiong Wang
> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:17, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:06:01PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: >> >>> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:00, Alexei Starovoitov >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:05:29PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: After previous patches, verifier h

Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:06:01PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:00, Alexei Starovoitov > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:05:29PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: > >> After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really > >> need zero extension

Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Jiong Wang
> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:00, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:05:29PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: >> After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really >> need zero extension on dst_reg. >> >> It is then for all back-ends to decide how to use such

Re: [PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-27 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:05:29PM +, Jiong Wang wrote: > After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really > need zero extension on dst_reg. > > It is then for all back-ends to decide how to use such information to > eliminate unnecessary zero extension codegen during

[PATCH/RFC bpf-next 06/16] bpf: new sysctl "bpf_jit_32bit_opt"

2019-03-26 Thread Jiong Wang
After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really need zero extension on dst_reg. It is then for all back-ends to decide how to use such information to eliminate unnecessary zero extension codegen during JIT compilation. One approach is: 1. Verifier insert explicit zero