Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752129AbdGGNFR (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:05:17 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:49591 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751859AbdGGNFQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:05:16 -0400 Message-ID: <595F8703.60301@iogearbox.net> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 15:05:07 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edward Cree , Alexei Starovoitov , Alexei Starovoitov CC: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iovisor-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier References: <5953B436.6030506@iogearbox.net> <788035e1-1974-b48e-3008-d294194a8b05@solarflare.com> <595413AA.40502@iogearbox.net> <20170628213701.32krfuipzngsmt4k@ast-mbp> <91267d15-652a-16d9-4ee9-42958bd842aa@solarflare.com> <5fa61129-fa82-1607-3363-dfad86aecf1e@solarflare.com> <595C1685.4060209@iogearbox.net> <54b95191-697d-6b15-ec39-438c85e08adc@solarflare.com> <595F50F3.2030008@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 17 On 07/07/2017 02:50 PM, Edward Cree wrote: > On 07/07/17 10:14, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> But this means the bpf_lxc_* cases increase quite significantly, >> arguably one of them is pretty close already, but the other one not >> so much, meaning while 142k would shoot over the 128k target quite a >> bit, the 95k is quite close to the point that it wouldn't take much, >> say, few different optimizations from compiler, to hit the limit as >> well eventually, something like 156k for the time being would seem a >> more adequate raise perhaps that needs to be evaluated carefully >> given the situation. > Note that the numbers in my table are the _sum_ of all the progs in the > object file, not the #insns for a single program. (Hence the awk > invocation in my pipeline.) For instance in bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o > on net-next there were (iirc) a couple of 30k progs and then some > smaller ones, not a single 93k prog. Okay, sorry, seems I misread in that case.