Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230626085811.3192402-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
 <7e05efe1-0af0-1896-6f6f-dcb02ed8ca27@iogearbox.net> <ZKMCFtlfJA1LfGNJ@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <CANk7y0gTXPBj5U-vFK0cEvVe83tP1FqyD=MuLXT_amWO=EssOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANk7y0hRYzpsYoqcU1tHyZThAgg-cx46C4-n2JYZTa7sDwEk-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQJJHiSZPZFpu1n-oQLEsUptacSzF7FdOKfO6OEoKz-jXg@mail.gmail.com> <ZMuLvKRbPfOK0IpN@FVFF77S0Q05N>
In-Reply-To: <ZMuLvKRbPfOK0IpN@FVFF77S0Q05N>
From:   Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:11:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CANk7y0hQcuabELOH-QHiqNAJhuCZYeWim7AJ125zS7_GnKwcGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/3] bpf, arm64: use BPF prog pack allocator
 in BPF JIT
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> =
wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 02:02:39PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 10:22=E2=80=AFAM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > > I am really looking forward to your feedback on this series.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 9:50=E2=80=AFAM Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 7:15=E2=80=AFPM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@a=
rm.com> 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 syst=
ems 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 mitigat=
e 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 t=
ake 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 urg=
ent
> bug-fixing for the last few weeks, and my review bandwidth is therfore ve=
ry
> 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 wa=
sn't a
> major blocker and could wait.

Yes, I am just doing it as a side project for fun. It is not a major blocke=
r.

>
> I should have sent a holding reply to that effect; sorry.
>
> The series addresses my original concern. However, in looking at it I thi=
nk
> there may me a wider potential isssue w.r.t. the way instruction memory g=
ets
> 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 architect=
s,
> etc.
>
> So how urgent is this?

This is not urgent as this is not a blocker for anything.

I just wanted to know if there was something pending from my side.

Please review it whenever you have spare time. Thanks for helping me debug =
the
issue with the cache maintenance.

Thanks,
Puranjay