similar to: [iovisor-dev] [PATCH RFC 3/4] New 32-bit register set

Hi, Jiong, Thanks for the patch! It is a great start to support 32bit register in BPF. In the past, I have studied a little bit to see whether 32bit register support may reduce the number of unnecessary shifts on x86_64 and improve the performance. Looking through a few bpf programs and it looks like the opportunity is not great, but still nice to have if we have this capability. As you

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Jakub Kicinski via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:03:47 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> On 9/22/17 9:24 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:56:55 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote:

Hi, Tom, Considering the severity of this bug, I would like to go ahead to push the fix into release_50 branch. The fix has been tested in the trunk and by various people as well and I will also make sure all BPF tests passed before the push. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Y Song <ys114321 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Tom, > > I have a BPF backend bug which is

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 18/09/2017 22:29, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 09/18/2017 10:47 PM, Jiong Wang wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > >    Currently, LLVM eBPF backend always generate code in 64-bit mode, > > > this may > > > cause troubles when JITing to 32-bit targets. > > >

On 09/18/2017 10:47 PM, Jiong Wang wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, LLVM eBPF backend always generate code in 64-bit mode, this may > cause troubles when JITing to 32-bit targets. > > For example, it is quite common for XDP eBPF program to access some packet > fields through base + offset that the default eBPF will generate BPF_ALU64 for > the address formation, later when

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev >> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >>> elfutils, and binutils. >> >> great! >> Can

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, > elfutils, and binutils. great! Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches? > diff --git a/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h b/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h > index 352fd8a..fb8ff71 100644 > ---

Thanks. That is good suggestion. I will start to work on 4.0 now. It would be good to know the 4.0.x patch release schedule and how to contribute. I found this email containing backporting timeline for 4.0.1 (already done): http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111530.html >From email, it is not clear to me whether we have upcoming 4.0.2 or not. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Jul

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Thinking about next steps - do we expect the 32b operations to clear the > > > upper halves of the registers? The interpreter does it, and so does > > > x86. I don't think we can load 32bit-only programs on 64bit hosts, so > > > we would need some form of data flow analysis in the kernel

Hi, I've tagged the 5.0.1-rc2 release, go ahead and start testing and report your results. -Tom

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 07:04:33PM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > Add support for sockmap to vsock. > > We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS > requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the > performance of such a setup. > > Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by > 121% in basic testing.

Hi, I want to backport the following three patches (currently in trunk 5.0) to 3.8/3.9/4.0: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305560 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305608 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL306685 Some BPF users want them since their product needs to work on old linux distribution which has older versions of LLVM. Could somebody (maybe Tom Stellard or others) help clarify whether it is possible

Hi, I have two BPF related patches, clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65615 llvm: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65617 The llvm patch changes one IR Builder function signature: from: Value *CreatePreserveArrayAccessIndex(Value *Base, unsigned Dimension, unsigned LastIndex) to Value *CreatePreserveArrayAccessIndex(Value *Base, unsigned Dimension,

Hi, I tried to push the diff https://reviews.llvm.org/D69438 to trunk following instructions at https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#commit-from-git Specially, I have done the following setup: $ export PATH=$PATH:$TOP_LEVEL_DIR/llvm-project/llvm/utils/git-svn/ But my `git llvm push` did not really do the push as shown below: -bash-4.4$ git llvm push `git fetch

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

Thanks, Alex. See my comments below. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 22 August 2017 at 23:39, Y Song via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, > > Hi Yonghong. > >> I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created >> between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:33:44PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > Changes in v2: > * Dropped patches which were pulled into maintainer trees. > * Split BPF patches out into another series targeting bpf-next. > * trace-agent now falls back to debugfs if tracefs isn't present. > * Added Acked-by from mst at redhat.com to series. > * Added a typo fixup for the virtio-trace

Pulling header files directly out of the kernel sources for inclusion in userspace programs is highly error prone, not least because it bypasses the kbuild infrastructure entirely and so may end up referencing other header files that have not been generated. Subsequent patches will cause compiler.h to pull in the ungenerated asm/rwonce.h file via filter.h, breaking the build for tools/bpf: | $

Pulling header files directly out of the kernel sources for inclusion in userspace programs is highly error prone, not least because it bypasses the kbuild infrastructure entirely and so may end up referencing other header files that have not been generated. Subsequent patches will cause compiler.h to pull in the ungenerated asm/rwonce.h file via filter.h, breaking the build for tools/bpf: | $

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void