On 2023/9/14 21:02, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:23:48PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:34:11PM +0800, Pu Lehui wrote:
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx>
Add necessary Zbb instructions introduced by [0] to reduce code size and
improve performance of RV64 JIT. At the same time, a helper is added to
check whether the CPU supports Zbb instructions.
[0] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
index 8e0ef4d08..7ee59d1f6 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit.h
@@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ static inline bool rvc_enabled(void)
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C);
}
+static inline bool rvzbb_enabled(void)
+{
+ return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB);
+}
I dunno much about bpf, so passing question that may be a bit obvious:
Is this meant to be a test as to whether the kernel binary is built with
support for the extension, or whether the underlying platform is capable
of executing zbb instructions.
Sorry if that would be obvious to a bpf aficionado, context I have here
is the later user and the above rvc_enabled() test, which functions
differently to Zbb and so doesn't really help me.
FTR, I got an off-list reply about this & it is meant to be a check as
to whether the underlying platform supports the extension. The current
test here is insufficient for that.
Thanks Conor for explain me lot about the difference between Compressed
instructions and Zbb instructions. As the compressed instructions are a
build-time option, while the Zbb is runtime detected. We need to add
additional runtime detection as show bellow:
riscv_has_extension_likely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB)
will patch this suggestion to the next version.
Thanks,
Lehui.
Thanks,
Conor.
