[PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: tailcall: Eliminate max_entries and bpf_func access at runtime

[Jiri Olsa]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 04:10:01PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 7:01 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang at linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > This patch series optimizes BPF tail calls on x86_64 and arm64 by
> > eliminating runtime memory accesses for max_entries and 'prog->bpf_func'
> > when the prog array map is known at verification time.
> >
> > Currently, every tail call requires:
> >   1. Loading max_entries from the prog array map
> >   2. Dereferencing 'prog->bpf_func' to get the target address
> >
> > This series introduces a mechanism to precompute and cache the tail call
> > target addresses (bpf_func + prologue_offset) in the prog array itself:
> >   array->ptrs[max_entries + index] = prog->bpf_func + prologue_offset
> >
> > When a program is added to or removed from the prog array, the cached
> > target is atomically updated via xchg().
> >
> > The verifier now encodes additional information in the tail call
> > instruction's imm field:
> >   - bits 0-7:   map index in used_maps[]
> >   - bits 8-15:  dynamic array flag (1 if map pointer is poisoned)
> >   - bits 16-31: poke table index + 1 for direct tail calls
> >
> > For static tail calls (map known at verification time):
> >   - max_entries is embedded as an immediate in the comparison instruction
> >   - The cached target from array->ptrs[max_entries + index] is used
> >     directly, avoiding the 'prog->bpf_func' dereference
> >
> > For dynamic tail calls (map pointer poisoned):
> >   - Fall back to runtime lookup of max_entries and prog->bpf_func
> >
> > This reduces cache misses and improves tail call performance for the
> > common case where the prog array is statically known.
> 
> Sorry, I don't like this. tail_calls are complex enough and
> I'd rather let them be as-is and deprecate their usage altogether
> instead of trying to optimize them in certain conditions.
> We have indirect jumps now. The next step is indirect calls.
> When it lands there will be no need to use tail_calls.
> Consider tail_calls to be legacy. No reason to improve them.

hi,
I'd like to make tail calls available in sleepable programs. I still
need to check if there's technical reason we don't have that, but seeing
this answer I wonder you'd be against that anyway ?

fyi I briefly discussed that with Andrii indicating that it might not
be worth the effort at this stage.

thanks,
jirka