[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fbc6e111-f610-2ef9-bb2a-6503d747124f@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:40:06 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: <tgraf@...g.ch>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 06/10] bpf: sockmap with sk redirect support
On 8/15/17 10:32 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> +
> +static void smap_do_verdict(struct smap_psock *psock, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + struct sock *sock;
> + int rc;
> +
> + /* Because we use per cpu values to feed input from sock redirect
> + * in BPF program to do_sk_redirect_map() call we need to ensure we
> + * are not preempted. RCU read lock is not sufficient in this case
> + * with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU enabled so we must be explicit here.
> + */
> + preempt_disable();
> + rc = smap_verdict_func(psock, skb);
> + switch (rc) {
> + case SK_REDIRECT:
> + sock = do_sk_redirect_map();
> + preempt_enable();
> + if (likely(sock)) {
> + struct smap_psock *peer = smap_psock_sk(sock);
> +
> + if (likely(peer &&
> + test_bit(SMAP_TX_RUNNING, &peer->state) &&
> + sk_stream_memory_free(peer->sock))) {
> + peer->sock->sk_wmem_queued += skb->truesize;
> + sk_mem_charge(peer->sock, skb->truesize);
> + skb_queue_tail(&peer->rxqueue, skb);
> + schedule_work(&peer->tx_work);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + /* Fall through and free skb otherwise */
> + case SK_DROP:
> + default:
> + preempt_enable();
> + kfree_skb(skb);
two preempt_enable() after single preempt_disable()?
> +
> +static void smap_tx_work(struct work_struct *w)
> +{
> + struct smap_psock *psock;
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + int rem, off, n;
> +
> + psock = container_of(w, struct smap_psock, tx_work);
> +
> + /* lock sock to avoid losing sk_socket at some point during loop */
> + lock_sock(psock->sock);
> + if (psock->save_skb) {
> + skb = psock->save_skb;
> + rem = psock->save_rem;
> + off = psock->save_off;
> + psock->save_skb = NULL;
> + goto start;
> + }
> +
> + while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&psock->rxqueue))) {
> + rem = skb->len;
> + off = 0;
> +start:
> + do {
> + if (likely(psock->sock->sk_socket))
> + n = skb_send_sock_locked(psock->sock,
> + skb, off, rem);
so this will be hot loop ?
Do you have perf report by any chance? Curious how it looks.
> + /* reserve BPF programs early so can abort easily on failures */
> + if (map_flags & BPF_SOCKMAP_STRPARSER) {
why have two 'flags' arguments and new helper just for this?
can normal update() be used and extra bits of flag there?
> -#define BPF_PROG_ATTACH_LAST_FIELD attach_flags
> +#define BPF_PROG_ATTACH_LAST_FIELD attach_bpf_fd2
> + prog1 = bpf_prog_get_type(attr->attach_bpf_fd, ptype);
> + if (IS_ERR(prog1)) {
> + fdput(f);
> + return PTR_ERR(prog1);
> + }
> +
> + prog2 = bpf_prog_get_type(attr->attach_bpf_fd2, ptype);
could you add a comment to uapi on possible uses of this field
otherwise the name is not readable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists