Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:08:36 -0700 | From | Alexei Starovoitov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] bpf: change bpf syacall to use u64 temp variables |
| |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:10:46PM +0800, yalin wang wrote: > This patch change map_lookup_elem() and map_update_elem() function > to use u64 temp variable if the key_size or value_size is less than > u64, we don't need use kmalloc() for these small variables. > > Signed-off-by: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@gmail.com> > --- > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > index f640e5f..c82d7bf 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > @@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr) > void __user *uvalue = u64_to_ptr(attr->value); > int ufd = attr->map_fd; > struct bpf_map *map; > - void *key, *value, *ptr; > + u64 key_buf, value_buf; > + void *key = &key_buf, *value = &value_buf, *ptr; > struct fd f; > int err; > > @@ -202,7 +203,8 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr) > return PTR_ERR(map); > > err = -ENOMEM; > - key = kmalloc(map->key_size, GFP_USER); > + if (map->key_size > sizeof(u64)) > + key = kmalloc(map->key_size, GFP_USER);
I think it's a good optimization for common case. Performance numbers would be good to prove the point. Thanks
| |