From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-181830-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F411382C5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:40:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED252E0959;
Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:40:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pl0-x235.google.com (mail-pl0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE66E092C
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 00:40:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pl0-x235.google.com with SMTP id s3so4033780plp.4
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:40:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=Cv+/VALiQi+bsonAo91eqK0lEVTeAQ4u2VZrxJNxDvU=;
b=HDHdnNR0rZPzeItlhkh/i0c6ZNOjvgN+xm6xYxbWImgg4VGDMumjGS9AhulOCmp5ZV
0VCgGyWE/0Tuk55jtqRGbUfDgoKGhVlwj7f57l18L+3utynzTuFfa+LiTgbTVJYFDT4K
jqX0hW6l4x5FwXV3vBhe8E97eA/VGnUWJf7Sh77kg9Bs95enzCtb3MyYrhTRq28pevka
KS2FZqOitDuHbQzvg4nDCnrEmrg7yzet3UgH+QSeXGn4utRh2c5uuJXO53vFfHEr+Wfv
coHgAAm4/BZBeuVRMGFD0JUeRJ7ScPTjKUP/Uq1zOSIzBD4eJPoT07EO1IUuIK5jICCX
bxUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=Cv+/VALiQi+bsonAo91eqK0lEVTeAQ4u2VZrxJNxDvU=;
b=rvKFgY5MK27kaE3BYGaoqiPGfXQYQF2fH0R0sDaGdt7g7j6S9m3hnF7yGM7o/EbPRV
hKotGX3JA7gqSD5lOkZ4ezwpQtpH32cVFK5S1tx3w+Atpjav1ErKSohVe3bHqUCr2qVz
j99IKOdMW1cwGNa6mmEgz1BWsl8jeLBrOL3nHpAPQQuH8PK2MI/lymoli2WIh/nMN7Ly
+i0WAaTuy4CdPcEfyIk5oPNizG0jTJuyWa/jZ/3/Gfr7Es3mhQEVnRXHbMyKyCouNQEc
63ztGZ25yPCKLXUojTT+oK/vzCFBCypcyGRHbyZXHh7xXtvn+ErlS/70LlDLB/qfuIte
xmRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJJU9G3L1ktwcfSwNhU0Cob22e65EfRgJnUkEHVJTda8JgVMrc1
kn9H7B1tyqTw5YQSFmHv0zVmFSIiNQpZzqzaVMh+Pw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouGq19R2urZrVb0FWQKuOhviuz1FnVAIAn9Lm2XfDsJEBnIQGV2mB+PW270+OF96VLwkTHTzCLx0yqID3bJpUg=
X-Received: by 10.84.251.134 with SMTP id w6mr4746866pll.230.1515199218839;
Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.151.169 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:40:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAC=wYCEvh8PHMzZpAjBzAK3fpf4-b1XfmennTVpTA1eK6+uEPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADX8ZBLJttMUsScnOk8jVUp_f0SvT_iLebGQmXjWK9gsO=DK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<1881593.SvZJgh6QS2@peak> <20180105180410.rh33vz2vdvgzjrn4@matica.foolinux.mooo.com>
<1544555.tdgMk6EmPg@peak> <CAC=wYCEvh8PHMzZpAjBzAK3fpf4-b1XfmennTVpTA1eK6+uEPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:40:18 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YaBzmQ6uv5HISdhcomjAKom0H5I
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mxtubjG4-K6DF2Hzdvc50j9zRRv63SyuKn2UcPrAQhvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Expect a ~15% average slowdown if you use an
Intel processor
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: 5f627500-6a6e-46aa-b93b-1edec16175de
X-Archives-Hash: 38f26ae378e7d8c31803e72f6e71ba8a
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, HAVE_EBPF_JIT=y just means that BPF JIT _can_ be done on x86. There
>> > is a separate BPF_JIT setting to actually enable it.
>>
>> Well, that doesn't seem to be present here. Just the HAVE_ symbol.
>
>
> Careful, there's BPF and EBPF.
>
> $ zgrep BPF /proc/config.gz
> CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF=y
> CONFIG_BPF=y
> CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL=y
> # CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_BPF is not set
> # CONFIG_NET_CLS_BPF is not set
> # CONFIG_NET_ACT_BPF is not set
> # CONFIG_BPF_JIT is not set
> # CONFIG_BPF_STREAM_PARSER is not set
> CONFIG_HAVE_EBPF_JIT=y
> # CONFIG_TEST_BPF is not set
>
In this context they're the same thing. The only use of "EBPF" is
that internal dependency, which might be why nobody bothered to try to
change it.
--
Rich