From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Yu Subject: Re: [Q/RFC] BPF use in broader scope Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:41:31 +0800 Message-ID: <4FAC7C5B.40109@gmail.com> References: <20120329074443.GB2098@minipsycho> <20120329.034957.655153582806618222.davem@davemloft.net> <20120329075410.GC2098@minipsycho> <1333008145.2325.275.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120329083149.GD2098@minipsycho> <1333010732.2325.339.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120329093158.GA2275@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bhutchings@solarflare.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, matt@ozlabs.org To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:34417 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752800Ab2EKClp (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2012 22:41:45 -0400 Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so2469282dad.19 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:41:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120329093158.GA2275@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E4=BA=8E 2012=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8829=E6=97=A5 17:31, Jiri Pirko =E5=86=99= =E9=81=93: > Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:45:32AM CEST, eric.dumazet@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 10:31 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:02:25AM CEST, eric.dumazet@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 09:54 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yep, I'm aware. I must admit that the JIT code scares me a litte = :( >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you add a new XOR instruction in interpreter only, JIT compiler= will >>>> automatically aborts, so no risk. >>>> >>>> Each arch maintainer will add the support for the new instructions= as >>>> separate patches. >>>> >>>> So you can focus on net/core/filter.c file only. >>>> >>> >>> Ok - I can do this for 2). But for 3) JITs need to be modified. So = I >>> would like to kindly ask you and Matt if you can do this modificati= on so >>> bpf_func takes pointer to mem (scratch store) as second parameter. = I'm >>> sure it's very easy for you to do. >> >> I am not sure why you want this. >> >> This adds register pressure (at least for x86) ... > > Well I think that there would become handy to be able to pass some da= ta > to bpf_func (other than skb). But it's just an idea. > Hi, Jiri Pirko, any progress of extended BPF? :) I am interesting in 3) much. For my requirements, it just only need BPF has ability to handle arbitrary "pre-filled memory area", but not handle both a skb and such a memory area at same time, so I think that register pressure should not be become the performance bottleneck here. Otherwise, I must construct a fake sk_buff to execute filter feature, it is ugly, isn't it? I guess that Nuno Martins's requirements also are similar. And, I also would like join this project, if you need. Thanks Yu >> >> >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >