On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:10 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:01:56PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 06:04:35PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Catalin Marinas > > > <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:52:24PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote: > > > > > This will be used by bpf_throw() to unwind till the program marked as > > > > > exception boundary and run the callback with the stack of the main > > > > > program. > > > > > > > > > > This is required for supporting BPF exceptions on ARM64. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > [...] > > > > I guess you want this to be merged via the bpf tree? > > > > > > We typically take bpf jit patches through bpf-next, since > > > we do cross arch jits refactoring from time to time, > > > but nothing like this is pending for this merge window, > > > so if you want it to go through arm64 tree that's fine with us. > > > > I don't have any preference. I can add it on top of the other arm64 > > patches if there are no dependencies on it from your side. > > Actually, it depends on patches in bpf-next AFAICT (it doesn't apply > cleanly on top of vanilla -rc3). So please take the patches through the > bpf tree. Ok. Took it into bpf-next. Please take a look at these Puranjay's patchset: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20240221145106.105995-1-puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx/ It's a pretty nice performance improvement.
