Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:08:30 -0700 | From | Roman Gushchin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 27/35] bpf: eliminate rlimit-based memory accounting infra for bpf maps |
| |
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:06:42PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:47 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:26 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Remove rlimit-based accounting infrastructure code, which is not used > > > > anymore. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > > > [...] > > > > > > > > static void bpf_map_put_uref(struct bpf_map *map) > > > > @@ -541,7 +484,7 @@ static void bpf_map_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *filp) > > > > "value_size:\t%u\n" > > > > "max_entries:\t%u\n" > > > > "map_flags:\t%#x\n" > > > > - "memlock:\t%llu\n" > > > > + "memlock:\t%llu\n" /* deprecated */ > > > > > > I am not sure whether we can deprecate this one.. How difficult is it > > > to keep this statistics? > > > > > > > It's factually correct now, that BPF map doesn't use any memlock memory, no?
Right.
> > I am not sure whether memlock really means memlock for all users... I bet there > are users who use memlock to check total memory used by the map.
But this is just the part of struct bpf_map, so I agree with Andrii, it's a safe check.
> > > > > This is actually one way to detect whether RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is necessary > > or not: create a small map, check if it's fdinfo has memlock: 0 or not > > :) > > If we do show memlock=0, this is a good check...
The only question I have if it's worth checking at all? Bumping the rlimit is a way cheaper operation than creating a temporarily map and checking its properties.
So is there any win in comparison to just leaving the userspace code* as it is for now?
* except runqslower and samples
| |