From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net,
jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@redhat.com,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
jannh@google.com
Subject: Re: bpf memory model. Was: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:50:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190130195000.aswpdngpvtfyylng@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190130181100.GA18558@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:11:00PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Assuming that a desirable property of an eBPF program is portability between
> CPU architectures, then you're effectively forcing the programmer to "assume
that is fundamental misunderstanding that being thrown in this thread.
bpf is not fixated on portability.
All projects that tried to come up with universal byte code miserably failed.
bpf program compiled for big endian won't load on little.
bpf program designed to be used on x86 will work horribly slow on nfp.
It will work, but will be innefficient. Hence we have alu32 mode in llvm.
More so maps don't map one to one to all archs either.
per-cpu map doesn't exist on nfp. we're still figuring out
an equivalent for it for nfp.
So, no, programs are not portable across architectures.
The programmer cannot assume that.
They could be portable in some cases and we're trying to keep portability
as much as possible, but it's not a "desirable property" that we're going
to sacrifice performance and usability for it.
If it helps look at bpf as a safe kernel module.
Does given kernel module work on all archs? No. Sometimes users only need
to recompile it and sometimes do heavy changes. smp_mb and load acquire
are the list things to worry about when folks trying to make
such 'safe kernel module' work on different archs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-30 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-24 4:13 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/9] introduce bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 18:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 18:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-24 23:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 0:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 1:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 1:46 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 2:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 4:27 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 4:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 4:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 16:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 4:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 16:18 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-25 23:44 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-26 0:43 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-26 0:59 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-24 23:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 0:18 ` Jann Horn
2019-01-25 2:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 2:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25 2:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 2:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-01-25 2:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 8:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 23:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 8:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 20:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 2:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-25 9:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-25 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-26 0:17 ` bpf memory model. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 21:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-29 9:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 2:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 8:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 19:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 18:11 ` Will Deacon
2019-01-30 18:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 21:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 22:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-31 14:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-31 18:47 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-02-01 14:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-30 19:50 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2019-01-24 4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: add support for bpf_spin_lock to cgroup local storage Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 3/9] tools/bpf: sync include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 4/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:13 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 5/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 6/9] bpf: introduce BPF_F_LOCK flag Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-24 4:14 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] tools/bpf: sync uapi/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190130195000.aswpdngpvtfyylng@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).