On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 4:13 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alexei, > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 02:02:39PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 10:22 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > I am really looking forward to your feedback on this series. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 9:50 AM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 7:15 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:40:21PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/26/23 10:58 AM, Puranjay Mohan wrote: > > > > > > > BPF programs currently consume a page each on ARM64. For systems with many BPF > > > > > > > programs, this adds significant pressure to instruction TLB. High iTLB pressure > > > > > > > usually causes slow down for the whole system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Song Liu introduced the BPF prog pack allocator[1] to mitigate the above issue. > > > > > > > It packs multiple BPF programs into a single huge page. It is currently only > > > > > > > enabled for the x86_64 BPF JIT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch series enables the BPF prog pack allocator for the ARM64 BPF JIT. > > > > > > > > > > > If you get a chance to take another look at the v4 changes from Puranjay and > > > > > > in case they look good to you reply with an Ack, that would be great. > > > > > > > > > > Sure -- this is on my queue of things to look at; it might just take me a few > > > > > days to get the time to give this a proper look. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > I am eagerly looking forward to your feedback on this series. > > > > Mark, Catalin, Florent, KP, > > > > This patch set was submitted on June 26 ! > > I appreciate this was sent a while ago, but I have been stuck on some urgent > bug-fixing for the last few weeks, and my review bandwidth is therfore very > limited. > > Given Puranjay had previously told me he was doing this as a side project for > fun, and given no-one had told me this was urgent, I assumed that this wasn't a > major blocker and could wait. > > I should have sent a holding reply to that effect; sorry. > > The series addresses my original concern. However, in looking at it I think > there may me a wider potential isssue w.r.t. the way instruction memory gets > reused, because as writtten today the architecture doesn't seem to have a > guarantee on when instruction fetches are completed and therefore when it's > safe to modify instruction memory. Usually we're saved by TLB maintenance, > which this series avoids by design. > > I unfortunately haven't had the time to dig into that, poke our architects, > etc. > > So how urgent is this? The performance wins are substantial. We'd like to realize them sooner than later.
