Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:28:15 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: introduce timeout hash map

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:00 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:00 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >               ret = PTR_ERR(l_new);
> > > > +             if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> > > > +                     htab_unlock_bucket(htab, b, hash, flags);
> > > > +                     htab_gc_elem(htab, l_old);
> > > > +                     mod_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &htab->gc_work, 0);
> > > > +                     goto again;
> > >
> > > Also this one looks rather worrying, so the BPF prog is stalled here, loop-waiting
> > > in (e.g. XDP) hot path for system_unbound_wq to kick in to make forward progress?
> >
> > In this case, the old one is scheduled for removal in GC, we just wait for GC
> > to finally remove it. It won't stall unless GC itself or the worker scheduler is
> > wrong, both of which should be kernel bugs.
> >
> > If we don't do this, users would get a -E2BIG when it is not too big. I don't
> > know a better way to handle this sad situation, maybe returning -EBUSY
> > to users and let them call again?
>
> I think using wq for timers is a non-starter.
> Tying a hash/lru map with a timer is not a good idea either.

Both xt_hashlimit and nf_conntrack_core use delayed/deferrable
works, probably since their beginnings. They seem to have started
well. ;)

>
> I think timers have to be done as independent objects similar to
> how the kernel uses them.
> Then there will be no question whether lru or hash map needs it.

Yeah, this probably could make the code easier, but when we have
millions of entries in a map, millions of timers would certainly bring
a lot of CPU overhead (timer interrupt storm?).


> The bpf prog author will be able to use timers with either.
> The prog will be able to use timers without hash maps too.
>
> I'm proposing a timer map where each object will go through
> bpf_timer_setup(timer, callback, flags);
> where "callback" is a bpf subprogram.
> Corresponding bpf_del_timer and bpf_mod_timer would work the same way
> they are in the kernel.
> The tricky part is kernel style of using from_timer() to access the
> object with additional info.
> I think bpf timer map can model it the same way.
> At map creation time the value_size will specify the amount of extra
> bytes necessary.
> Another alternative is to pass an extra data argument to a callback.

Hmm, this idea is very interesting. I still think arming a timer,
whether a kernel timer or a bpf timer, for each entry is overkill,
but we can arm one for each map, something like:

bpf_timer_run(interval, bpf_prog, &any_map);

so we run 'bpf_prog' on any map every 'interval', but the 'bpf_prog'
would have to iterate the whole map during each interval to delete
the expired ones. This is probably doable: the timestamps can be
stored either as a part of key or value, and bpf_jiffies64() is already
available, users would have to discard expired ones after lookup
when they are faster than the timer GC.

Let me take a deeper look tomorrow.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists