[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+hPNQ3-fVj-5qt+UrT8yPavE9L7AaphsLLEKwve21P-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:49:36 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
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 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 17/18] bpf: add bpf_wq_start
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:14 AM Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> Honestly I just felt the patch series was big enough for a PoC and
> comparison with sleepable bpf_timer. But if we think this needs not to
> be added, I guess that works too :)
It certainly did its job to compare the two and imo bpf_wq with kfunc approach
looks cleaner overall and will be easier to extend in the long term.
I mean that we'll be adding 3 kfuncs initially:
bpf_wq_init, bpf_wq_start, bpf_wq_set_callback.
imo that's good enough to land it and get some exposure.
I'll be using it right away to refactor bpf_arena_alloc.h into
actual arena allocator for bpf progs that is not just a selftest.
I'm currently working on locks for bpf_arena.
Kumar has a patch set that adds bpf_preempt_disble kfunc and
coupled with bpf_wq we'll have all mechanisms to build
arbitrary data structures/algorithms as bpf programs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists