From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2414C433FE for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NJNxK1Yh9z3dvq for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 16:40:21 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=lwZBvza2; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=lwZBvza2; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NJNwF3Jn4z2xJN for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 16:39:25 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 2AP4Z4j9025893; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : subject : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : mime-version : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=w13mrymH4KYWhX8C+By/LPifLb1Xs84nwMRyXQGfR8A=; b=lwZBvza23Gn/mg/txSJCisZHQpv6+Uopd0lWQLew06bgYAJTWzj1FXYmP6Z7hF+tuDDH BEJ8WWVvDdbmu64w2L9mzBgA+giYRKSBXXNiDyIvOOQWYwy5T8S4OmkHw6POdsp7YDyy SSfdlc7lOTvBCdRa1DUuxjVZiOXd3VaFNkdEg7FXVJSS3FU0JKoTZ29hxL42dyEmjJby VMouEe5slRmrrGwvgpwMhzZTx8QF95EIlzLkalKgOKQrMbxL9HYgOwimCocowVFsM2/x pliN9G6y8uNWvkp9g4uVqb/IRCgkpFEQJd8l4MZWdR+deHo7JP5FMkaJf0yfNxx0Dnbx tg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3m2ptdh5wd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:58 +0000 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 2AP5BEEW021794; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:58 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3m2ptdh5vx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2AP5Zkph025155; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:56 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kxpdj141q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:55 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2AP5crHO5243642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:53 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8098FAE051; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1F7AE045; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.43.63.150]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 05:38:52 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 11:08:51 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/bpf: Only update ldimm64 during extra pass when it is an address To: Christophe Leroy , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin References: <3f6d302a2068d9e357efda2d92c8da99a0f2d0b2.1669278892.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <1669284441.66eunvaboi.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <9f17237f-94da-f58f-4f4b-0068851b4123@csgroup.eu> <1669297066.kxu8xl391n.naveen@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1669354227.c0iu04jq2o.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: MPwV45oJxt6nvxGUXCJBoDMQoQBIf8Mj X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: cFq-2K3Ph9aPUQxSd6n8YrznpOMIP-Gn X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-11-25_02,2022-11-24_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2211250044 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Hao Luo , Daniel Borkmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , John Fastabend , Andrii Nakryiko , Alexei Starovoitov , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Stanislav Fomichev , Jiri Olsa , KP Singh , =?iso-8859-1?q?Yonghong=0A?= Song , "bpf@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Christophe Leroy wrote: >=20 >=20 > Le 24/11/2022 =C3=A0 14:49, Naveen N. Rao a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> Christophe Leroy wrote: >>> >>> >>> Le 24/11/2022 =C3=A0 11:13, Naveen N. Rao a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >>>> Christophe Leroy wrote: >>> >>> In what direction could that change in the future ? >>> >>> For me if they change that it becomes an API change. >>=20 >> More of an extension, which is exactly what we had when BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC=20 >> was introduced. Took us nearly a year before we noticed. >>=20 >> Because we do not do a full JIT during the extra pass today like other=20 >> architectures, we are the exception - there is always the risk of bpf=20 >> core changes breaking our JIT. So, I still think it is better if we do a= =20 >> full JIT during extra pass. >>=20 >=20 > I like the idea of a full JIT during extra passes and will start looking=20 > at it. >=20 > Will it also allow us to revert your commit fab07611fb2e=20 > ("powerpc32/bpf: Fix codegen for bpf-to-bpf calls") ? Not entirely. We still need those extra nops during the initial JIT so=20 that we can estimate the maximum prog size. During extra pass, we can=20 only emit the necessary instructions and skip extra nops. We may need to=20 do two passes during extra_pass to adjust the branch targets though. Thanks, Naveen