[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ldkte9pr.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:25:52 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...nel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Johannes
Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, JP
Kobryn <inwardvessel@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau
<martin.lau@...nel.org>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Kumar Kartikeya
Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/23] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops
to cgroups
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:17:05PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> @@ -1849,6 +1849,7 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops_link {
>> struct bpf_link link;
>> struct bpf_map __rcu *map;
>> wait_queue_head_t wait_hup;
>> + u64 cgroup_id;
>> };
>
> BTW, for sched_ext sub-sched support, I'm just adding cgroup_id to
> struct_ops, which seems to work fine. It'd be nice to align on the same
> approach. What are the benefits of doing this through fd?
Then you can attach a single struct ops to multiple cgroups (or Idk
sockets or processes or some other objects in the future).
And IMO it's just a more generic solution.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists