| Message ID | 20240115131235.2914289-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Zbb support and code simplification for RV64 JIT | expand |
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. > Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests > test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative > testcases of test_progs*. > > Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] > > v3 resend: > - resend for mail be treated as spam. > > v3: > - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. Lehui, Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing properly. Björn
On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: > Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > >> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >> testcases of test_progs*. >> >> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >> >> v3 resend: >> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >> >> v3: >> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. > > Lehui, > > Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in > 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing > properly. > Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c index 42cfd1ed295e..5c4e0ac389d0 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c @@ -795,6 +795,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, struct bpf_tramp_links *fentry = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FENTRY]; struct bpf_tramp_links *fexit = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_FEXIT]; struct bpf_tramp_links *fmod_ret = &tlinks[BPF_TRAMP_MODIFY_RETURN]; + bool is_struct_ops = flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT; void *orig_call = func_addr; bool save_ret; u32 insn; @@ -878,7 +879,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, stack_size = round_up(stack_size, 16); - if (func_addr) { + if (!is_struct_ops) { /* For the trampoline called from function entry, * the frame of traced function and the frame of * trampoline need to be considered. @@ -998,7 +999,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, emit_ld(RV_REG_S1, -sreg_off, RV_REG_FP, ctx); - if (func_addr) { + if (!is_struct_ops) { /* trampoline called from function entry */ emit_ld(RV_REG_T0, stack_size - 8, RV_REG_SP, ctx); emit_ld(RV_REG_FP, stack_size - 16, RV_REG_SP, ctx); > > Björn
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >> >>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>> testcases of test_progs*. >>> >>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>> >>> v3 resend: >>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>> >>> v3: >>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >> >> Lehui, >> >> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >> properly. >> > > Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it Awesome, I just started bisecting the following test_progs sub-test fails on 6.8-rc1: bpf_iter_setsockopt: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core dm_mod drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight configfs ip_tables x_tables CPU: 1 PID: 458 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) epc : 0x0 ra : tcp_set_ca_state+0x2c/0x9a epc : 0000000000000000 ra : ffffffff80cdc6b2 sp : ff2000000000b910 gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff60000087ea8040 t0 : 0000000000000000 t1 : ffffffff801ed15e t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000000b930 s1 : ff600000879296c0 a0 : ff20000000497000 a1 : 0000000000000008 a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff60000087ea83a0 a4 : 0000000000000000 a5 : 0000000000000106 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : 0000000000000000 s2 : 0000000000000000 s3 : ff60000086878008 s4 : ff60000082ce2f40 s5 : ff60000084f56040 s6 : ff60000087929040 s7 : ff60000086878008 s8 : ff2000000000ba5f s9 : ff60000087928a00 s10: 0000000000000002 s11: ff60000087928040 t3 : 000000000001ffff t4 : 0100000000000000 t5 : 0000000000000000 t6 : ff6000008792a118 status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 000000000000000c Code: Unable to access instruction at 0xffffffffffffffec. ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- bpf_tcp_ca: Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ff60000088554500 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: iptable_raw xt_connmark bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(OE)] CPU: 3 PID: 458 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) epc : 0xff60000088554500 ra : tcp_ack+0x288/0x1232 epc : ff60000088554500 ra : ffffffff80cc7166 sp : ff2000000117ba50 gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff60000087be0040 t0 : ff60000088554500 t1 : ffffffff801ed24e t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000117bbc0 s1 : 0000000000000500 a0 : ff20000000691000 a1 : 0000000000000018 a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff60000087be03a0 a4 : 0000000000000000 a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : ffffffff8263f880 s2 : 000000004ac3c13b s3 : 000000004ac3c13a s4 : 0000000000008200 s5 : 0000000000000001 s6 : 0000000000000104 s7 : ff2000000117bb00 s8 : ff600000885544c0 s9 : 0000000000000000 s10: ff60000086ff0b80 s11: 000055557983a9c0 t3 : 0000000000000000 t4 : 000000000000ffc4 t5 : ffffffff8154f170 t6 : 0000000000000030 status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: ff60000088554500 cause: 000000000000000c Code: c796 67d7 0000 0000 0052 0002 c13b 4ac3 0000 0000 (0001) 0000 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- dummy_st_ops: Unable to handle kernel access to user memory without uaccess routines at virtual address 0000000000043022 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: iptable_raw xt_connmark bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(OE)] CPU: 1 PID: 452 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) epc : 0x43022 ra : bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x188/0x37a epc : 0000000000043022 ra : ffffffff80c75d1a sp : ff200000002a3ce0 gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff6000008356b840 t0 : 0000000000043023 t1 : ffffffff801ed062 t2 : 000000000000ff00 s0 : ff200000002a3d40 s1 : ffffffff78207000 a0 : fffffffff2f3f4f5 a1 : 0000000000000008 a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff6000008356bba0 a4 : 0000000000000000 a5 : fffffffff2f3f4f5 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : 0000000052464e43 s2 : 0000000000000000 s3 : ff60000080b33b80 s4 : 0000000000000084 s5 : ff60000083334c00 s6 : ff60000084861580 s7 : 00007ffff0887668 s8 : 00007fffaa859030 s9 : 0000000000000000 s10: 000055556631ca4c s11: 000055556631c9c0 t3 : 000000000000000f t4 : 0000000000000800 t5 : 0001000000000000 t6 : ff6000008adb9bf8 status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000043022 cause: 000000000000000c Code: Unable to access instruction at 0x000000000004300e. ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Environment: OpenSBI 1.4, Qemu 8.2.0, U-boot UEFI Is that the same that you see? I'll take your patch for a spin! Björn
Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> writes: > Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > >> On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>> >>>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>>> testcases of test_progs*. >>>> >>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>>> >>>> v3 resend: >>>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>>> >>>> v3: >>>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >>> >>> Lehui, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >>> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >>> properly. >>> >> >> Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it Pu, with your patch bpf_iter_setsockopt, bpf_tcp_ca, and dummy_st_ops passes! Please spin a proper fixes patch, and feel free to add: Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> Björn
On 2024/1/22 22:44, Björn Töpel wrote: > Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > >> On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>> >>>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>>> testcases of test_progs*. >>>> >>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>>> >>>> v3 resend: >>>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>>> >>>> v3: >>>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >>> >>> Lehui, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >>> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >>> properly. >>> >> >> Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it > > Awesome, I just started bisecting the following test_progs sub-test > fails on 6.8-rc1: > > bpf_iter_setsockopt: > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000 > Oops [#1] > Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core dm_mod drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight configfs ip_tables x_tables > CPU: 1 PID: 458 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 > Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) > epc : 0x0 > ra : tcp_set_ca_state+0x2c/0x9a > epc : 0000000000000000 ra : ffffffff80cdc6b2 sp : ff2000000000b910 > gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff60000087ea8040 t0 : 0000000000000000 > t1 : ffffffff801ed15e t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000000b930 > s1 : ff600000879296c0 a0 : ff20000000497000 a1 : 0000000000000008 > a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff60000087ea83a0 a4 : 0000000000000000 > a5 : 0000000000000106 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : 0000000000000000 > s2 : 0000000000000000 s3 : ff60000086878008 s4 : ff60000082ce2f40 > s5 : ff60000084f56040 s6 : ff60000087929040 s7 : ff60000086878008 > s8 : ff2000000000ba5f s9 : ff60000087928a00 s10: 0000000000000002 > s11: ff60000087928040 t3 : 000000000001ffff t4 : 0100000000000000 > t5 : 0000000000000000 t6 : ff6000008792a118 > status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 000000000000000c > Code: Unable to access instruction at 0xffffffffffffffec. > ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > bpf_tcp_ca: > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ff60000088554500 > Oops [#1] > Modules linked in: iptable_raw xt_connmark bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(OE)] > CPU: 3 PID: 458 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 > Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) > epc : 0xff60000088554500 > ra : tcp_ack+0x288/0x1232 > epc : ff60000088554500 ra : ffffffff80cc7166 sp : ff2000000117ba50 > gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff60000087be0040 t0 : ff60000088554500 > t1 : ffffffff801ed24e t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000117bbc0 > s1 : 0000000000000500 a0 : ff20000000691000 a1 : 0000000000000018 > a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff60000087be03a0 a4 : 0000000000000000 > a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : ffffffff8263f880 > s2 : 000000004ac3c13b s3 : 000000004ac3c13a s4 : 0000000000008200 > s5 : 0000000000000001 s6 : 0000000000000104 s7 : ff2000000117bb00 > s8 : ff600000885544c0 s9 : 0000000000000000 s10: ff60000086ff0b80 > s11: 000055557983a9c0 t3 : 0000000000000000 t4 : 000000000000ffc4 > t5 : ffffffff8154f170 t6 : 0000000000000030 > status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: ff60000088554500 cause: 000000000000000c > Code: c796 67d7 0000 0000 0052 0002 c13b 4ac3 0000 0000 (0001) 0000 > ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > dummy_st_ops: > Unable to handle kernel access to user memory without uaccess routines at virtual address 0000000000043022 > Oops [#1] > Modules linked in: iptable_raw xt_connmark bpf_testmod(OE) drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(OE)] > CPU: 1 PID: 452 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.8.0-rc1-kselftest_plain #1 > Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) > epc : 0x43022 > ra : bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x188/0x37a > epc : 0000000000043022 ra : ffffffff80c75d1a sp : ff200000002a3ce0 > gp : ffffffff82587b60 tp : ff6000008356b840 t0 : 0000000000043023 > t1 : ffffffff801ed062 t2 : 000000000000ff00 s0 : ff200000002a3d40 > s1 : ffffffff78207000 a0 : fffffffff2f3f4f5 a1 : 0000000000000008 > a2 : 0000000000000001 a3 : ff6000008356bba0 a4 : 0000000000000000 > a5 : fffffffff2f3f4f5 a6 : 0000000000000021 a7 : 0000000052464e43 > s2 : 0000000000000000 s3 : ff60000080b33b80 s4 : 0000000000000084 > s5 : ff60000083334c00 s6 : ff60000084861580 s7 : 00007ffff0887668 > s8 : 00007fffaa859030 s9 : 0000000000000000 s10: 000055556631ca4c > s11: 000055556631c9c0 t3 : 000000000000000f t4 : 0000000000000800 > t5 : 0001000000000000 t6 : ff6000008adb9bf8 > status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000043022 cause: 000000000000000c > Code: Unable to access instruction at 0x000000000004300e. > ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > Environment: OpenSBI 1.4, Qemu 8.2.0, U-boot UEFI > > Is that the same that you se > Yes, is the same issue. The question is that the commit 2cd3e3772e41 ("x86/cfi,bpf: Fix bpf_struct_ops CFI") change func_addr of arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline from NULL to not NULL, while we use func_addr to distinguish struct_ops and regular trampoline. After commit 2cd3e3772e41, we can use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT to distinguish them as it always be set in struct_ops. > I'll take your patch for a spin! > > > Björn
On 2024/1/22 23:07, Björn Töpel wrote: > Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> writes: > >> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >> >>> On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >>>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>>>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>>>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>>>> testcases of test_progs*. >>>>> >>>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>>>> >>>>> v3 resend: >>>>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>>>> >>>>> v3: >>>>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >>>> >>>> Lehui, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >>>> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >>>> properly. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it > > Pu, with your patch bpf_iter_setsockopt, bpf_tcp_ca, and dummy_st_ops > passes! > > Please spin a proper fixes patch, and feel free to add: > > Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> > Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> > Is that in a hurry? If not, I would like to send it with the upcoming patchset. > > Björn
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > On 2024/1/22 23:07, Björn Töpel wrote: >> Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> writes: >> >>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >>>>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>>>>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>>>>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>>>>> testcases of test_progs*. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>>>>> >>>>>> v3 resend: >>>>>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>>>>> >>>>>> v3: >>>>>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >>>>> >>>>> Lehui, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >>>>> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >>>>> properly. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it >> >> Pu, with your patch bpf_iter_setsockopt, bpf_tcp_ca, and dummy_st_ops >> passes! >> >> Please spin a proper fixes patch, and feel free to add: >> >> Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> >> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> >> > > Is that in a hurry? If not, I would like to send it with the upcoming > patchset. This is a separate fix, right? What patchset are you referring to where the fix would be in? As of now 6.8-rc1 is broken! It would be a great with a fix asap... Cheers, Björn
On 2024/1/23 0:30, Björn Töpel wrote: > Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > >> On 2024/1/22 23:07, Björn Töpel wrote: >>> Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> writes: >>> >>>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 2024/1/22 22:33, Björn Töpel wrote: >>>>>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. >>>>>>> Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests >>>>>>> test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative >>>>>>> testcases of test_progs*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v3 resend: >>>>>>> - resend for mail be treated as spam. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> v3: >>>>>>> - Change to early-exit code style and make code more explicit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lehui, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the delay. I'm chasing a struct_ops RISC-V BPF regression in >>>>>> 6.8-rc1, I will need to wrap my head around that prior reviewing >>>>>> properly. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I also found the problem with struct ops and fixed it >>> >>> Pu, with your patch bpf_iter_setsockopt, bpf_tcp_ca, and dummy_st_ops >>> passes! >>> >>> Please spin a proper fixes patch, and feel free to add: >>> >>> Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> >>> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> >>> >> >> Is that in a hurry? If not, I would like to send it with the upcoming >> patchset. > > This is a separate fix, right? What patchset are you referring to where > the fix would be in? > Yes, you are right! I'll send a bug fix patch as soon as possible. Coming soon is the bpf_prog_pack for RV64 Trampoline, which currently does not seem to be related to the bugfix, will populate the commit message and send it later.
Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com> writes: > Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. > Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests > test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative > testcases of test_progs*. Lehui, apologies for the delay. Nice work! I have a minor comment in patch 4, but not a blocker... For the series, Tested-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
Hello: This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master) by Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>: On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:12:29 +0000 you wrote: > Add Zbb support [0] to optimize code size and performance of RV64 JIT. > Meanwhile, adjust the code for unification and simplification. Tests > test_bpf.ko and test_verifier have passed, as well as the relative > testcases of test_progs*. > > Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/releases/download/1.0.0/bitmanip-1.0.0-38-g865e7a7.pdf [0] > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,1/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit sign-extension to emit_sextw https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/e33758f7493c - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,2/6] riscv, bpf: Unify 32-bit zero-extension to emit_zextw https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/914c7a5ff18a - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,3/6] riscv, bpf: Simplify sext and zext logics in branch instructions https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/361db44c3c59 - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,4/6] riscv, bpf: Add necessary Zbb instructions https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/647b93f65daa - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,5/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize sign-extention mov insns with Zbb support https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/519fb722bea0 - [RESEND,bpf-next,v3,6/6] riscv, bpf: Optimize bswap insns with Zbb support https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/06a33d024838 You are awesome, thank you!