lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] libbpf: add libbpf support to batch ops
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:54 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:46 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > >
> > > Added four libbpf API functions to support map batch operations:
> > > . int bpf_map_delete_batch( ... )
> > > . int bpf_map_lookup_batch( ... )
> > > . int bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_batch( ... )
> > > . int bpf_map_update_batch( ... )
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 22 +++++++++++++++
> > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 4 +++
> > > 3 files changed, 86 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > index 500afe478e94a..12ce8d275f7dc 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > > @@ -452,6 +452,66 @@ int bpf_map_freeze(int fd)
> > > return sys_bpf(BPF_MAP_FREEZE, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int bpf_map_batch_common(int cmd, int fd, void *in_batch,
> > > + void *out_batch, void *keys, void *values,
> > > + __u32 *count,
> > > + const struct bpf_map_batch_opts *opts)
> > > +{
> > > + union bpf_attr attr = {};
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_map_batch_opts))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
> > > + attr.batch.map_fd = fd;
> > > + attr.batch.in_batch = ptr_to_u64(in_batch);
> > > + attr.batch.out_batch = ptr_to_u64(out_batch);
> > > + attr.batch.keys = ptr_to_u64(keys);
> > > + attr.batch.values = ptr_to_u64(values);
> > > + if (count)
> > > + attr.batch.count = *count;
> > > + attr.batch.elem_flags = OPTS_GET(opts, elem_flags, 0);
> > > + attr.batch.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
> > > +
> > > + ret = sys_bpf(cmd, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> > > + if (count)
> > > + *count = attr.batch.count;
> >
> > what if syscall failed, do you still want to assign *count then?
>
> Hi Andrii, thanks for taking a look.
>
> attr.batch.count should report the number of entries correctly
> processed before finding and error, an example could be when you
> provided a buffer for 3 entries and the map only has 1, ret is going
> to be -ENOENT meaning that you traversed the map and you still want to
> assign *count.

ah, ok, tricky semantics :) if syscall failed before kernel got to
updating count, I'm guessing it is guaranteed to preserve old value?

>
> That being said, the condition 'if (count)' is wrong and I think it
> should be removed.

So count is mandatory, right? In that case both `if (count)` checks are wrong.

>
> >
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > [...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 20:15    [W:0.033 / U:40.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site