From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PPC: bpf_jit_comp: add SKF_AD_PKTTYPE instruction Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:40:38 +0100 Message-ID: <54552926.1020504@redhat.com> References: <1414649535-3956-1-git-send-email-kda@linux-powerpc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Denis Kirjanov , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Matt Evans To: Denis Kirjanov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41865 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759918AbaKASkw (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:40:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/31/2014 07:09 AM, Denis Kirjanov wrote: > On 10/30/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Denis Kirjanov >> wrote: >>> Add BPF extension SKF_AD_PKTTYPE to ppc JIT to load >>> skb->pkt_type field. >>> >>> Before: >>> [ 88.262622] test_bpf: #11 LD_IND_NET 86 97 99 PASS >>> [ 88.265740] test_bpf: #12 LD_PKTTYPE 109 107 PASS >>> >>> After: >>> [ 80.605964] test_bpf: #11 LD_IND_NET 44 40 39 PASS >>> [ 80.607370] test_bpf: #12 LD_PKTTYPE 9 9 PASS >> >> if you'd only quoted #12, it would all make sense ;) >> but #11 test is not using PKTTYPE. So your patch shouldn't >> make a difference. Are these numbers with JIT on and off? > > Right. Ok. Please mention this in future log messages, as it was not quite clear that "before" was actually with JIT off, and "after" was with JIT on. One could have read it that actually both cases were with JIT on, and thus the inconsistent result for LD_IND_NET is a bit confusing since you've quoted it here as well.