[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuesNnY8oKimMk+gnUppMgZt92F+razSZCSfHu=xfq+snGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:33:39 -0700
From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add BPF_SYNCHRONIZE_MAP_TO_MAP_REFERENCES bpf(2) command
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:25:43 -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> > > Hmm, I don't think such UAPI as above is future-proof. In case we would want
> > > a similar mechanism in future for other maps, we would need a whole new bpf
> > > command or reuse BPF_SYNCHRONIZE_MAP_TO_MAP_REFERENCES as a workaround though
> > > the underlying map may not even be a map-to-map. Additionally, we don't have
> > > any map object at hand in the above, so we couldn't make any finer grained
> > > decisions either. Something like below would be more suitable and leaves room
> > > for extending this further in future.
> >
> > YAGNI. Your proposed mechanism doesn't add anything under the current
> > implementation.
>
> FWIW in case of HW offload targeting a particular map may allow users
> to avoid a potentially slow sync with all the devices on the system.
Sure. But such a thing doesn't exist right now (right?), and we can
add that more-efficient-in-that-one-case BPF interface when it lands.
I'd rather keep things simple for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists