linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem_cache iterator
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:50:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zxfl2kaFGA5GDOqo@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYB-KbDh+h3YXEGeWXcvaVchjf-2m2-nSQoWPE67zY68Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 04:32:10PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:06 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Add a new open coded iterator for kmem_cache which can be called from a
> > BPF program like below.  It doesn't take any argument and traverses all
> > kmem_cache entries.
> >
> >   struct kmem_cache *pos;
> >
> >   bpf_for_each(kmem_cache, pos) {
> >       ...
> >   }
> >
> > As it needs to grab slab_mutex, it should be called from sleepable BPF
> > programs only.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/helpers.c         |  3 ++
> >  kernel/bpf/kmem_cache_iter.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > index 073e6f04f4d765ff..d1dfa4f335577914 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > @@ -3111,6 +3111,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_bits_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_copy_from_user_str, KF_SLEEPABLE)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_kmem_cache)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_kmem_cache_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY | KF_SLEEPABLE)
> 
> I'm curious. Having bpf_iter_kmem_cache_{new,next,destroy} functions,
> can we rewrite kmem_cache_iter_seq_next in terms of these ones, so
> that we have less duplication of iteration logic? Or there will be
> some locking concerns preventing this? (I haven't looked into the
> actual logic much, sorry, lazy question)

It should be fine with locking, I think there's a subtle difference
between seq interface and the open coded iterator.  But I'll think about
how to reduce the duplication.

Thanks for your review!
Namhyung



      reply	other threads:[~2024-10-22 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-17  8:06 Namhyung Kim
2024-10-17  8:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a test for open coded kmem_cache iter Namhyung Kim
2024-10-18 18:46   ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-22 17:51     ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-21 23:36   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-22 17:52     ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-24  7:44     ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-18 18:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add open coded version of kmem_cache iterator Martin KaFai Lau
2024-10-22 17:47   ` Namhyung Kim
2024-10-21 23:32 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-22 17:50   ` Namhyung Kim [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Zxfl2kaFGA5GDOqo@google.com \
    --to=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox