[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJafr__W+oPvBjqisvh2vCRye8QkT9TQTFXH=wsDGtKqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:14:59 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 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 Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:14 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-29 9:06 a.m., Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>
> > Which leads to:
> > Why not extend the general feature so one can register for optional
> > callbacks not just for expire but also add/del/update on specific
> > entries or table?
> > add/del/update could be sourced from other kernel programs or user space
> > and the callback would be invoked before an entry is added/deleted etc.
> > (just like it is here for expiry).
>
> Sorry - shouldve read the rest of the thread:
> Agree with Cong that you want per-map but there are use cases where you
> want it per entry (eg the add/del/update case).
That was my point as well.
bpf_timer api should be generic, so that users can do both.
The program could use bpf_timer one for each flow and bpf_timer for each map.
And timers without maps.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists