linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Separate bpf_local_storage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7BKW40-NzJTPNPP90zz9ydP_9FSMa_qkGGwfQpp0thfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:02:31 -0800
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Separate bpf_local_storage_lookup() fast and slow paths

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:19 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/bpf_local_storage.h               | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c                  | 14 ++++----------
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/cgrp_ls_recursion.c     |  2 +-
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_ls_recursion.c     |  2 +-
>  4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_local_storage.h b/include/linux/bpf_local_storage.h
> index 173ec7f43ed1..c8cecf7fff87 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bpf_local_storage.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_local_storage.h
> @@ -130,9 +130,24 @@ bpf_local_storage_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr,
>                             bool bpf_ma);
>
>  struct bpf_local_storage_data *
> +bpf_local_storage_lookup_slowpath(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage,
> +                                 struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> +                                 bool cacheit_lockit);
> +static inline struct bpf_local_storage_data *
>  bpf_local_storage_lookup(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage,
>                          struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> -                        bool cacheit_lockit);
> +                        bool cacheit_lockit)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_local_storage_data *sdata;
> +
> +       /* Fast path (cache hit) */
> +       sdata = rcu_dereference_check(local_storage->cache[smap->cache_idx],
> +                                     bpf_rcu_lock_held());
> +       if (likely(sdata && rcu_access_pointer(sdata->smap) == smap))
> +               return sdata;

We have two changes here: 1) inlining; 2) likely() annotation. Could you please
include in the commit log how much do the two contribute to the performance
improvement?

Thanks,
Song

> +
> +       return bpf_local_storage_lookup_slowpath(local_storage, smap, cacheit_lockit);
> +}
>
[...]