[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4c6d889-d8ec-efe5-7fcb-aed9f5efa318@mojatatu.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:35:17 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.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 2021-01-29 10:14 p.m., Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.
I like it. Sensible to also have callback invocations for map
changes i.e entry create/update/delete (maybe map create/destroy).
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists