[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd6dee71-94d7-5393-8fe6-c667938ebfac@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:35:31 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: flexible size for bpf_prog_pack
On 2/10/22 5:51 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:25 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>> On 2/10/22 7:41 AM, Song Liu wrote:
>>> bpf_prog_pack uses huge pages to reduce pressue on instruction TLB.
>>> To guarantee allocating huge pages for bpf_prog_pack, it is necessary to
>>> allocate memory of size PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes().
>>> On the other hand, if the system doesn't support huge pages, it is more
>>> efficient to allocate PAGE_SIZE bpf_prog_pack.
>>> Address different scenarios with more flexible bpf_prog_pack_size().
>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/core.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>>> index 42d96549a804..d961a1f07a13 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>>> @@ -814,46 +814,53 @@ int bpf_jit_add_poke_descriptor(struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>> * allocator. The prog_pack allocator uses HPAGE_PMD_SIZE page (2MB on x86)
>>> * to host BPF programs.
>>> */
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>> -#define BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE HPAGE_PMD_SIZE
>>> -#else
>>> -#define BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE PAGE_SIZE
>>> -#endif
>>> #define BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SHIFT 6
>>> #define BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE (1 << BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SHIFT)
>>> #define BPF_PROG_CHUNK_MASK (~(BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE - 1))
>>> -#define BPF_PROG_CHUNK_COUNT (BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE / BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE)
>>> struct bpf_prog_pack {
>>> struct list_head list;
>>> void *ptr;
>>> - unsigned long bitmap[BITS_TO_LONGS(BPF_PROG_CHUNK_COUNT)];
>>> + unsigned long bitmap[];
>>> };
>>> -#define BPF_PROG_MAX_PACK_PROG_SIZE BPF_PROG_PACK_SIZE
>>> #define BPF_PROG_SIZE_TO_NBITS(size) (round_up(size, BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE) / BPF_PROG_CHUNK_SIZE)
>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(pack_mutex);
>>> static LIST_HEAD(pack_list);
>>> +static inline int bpf_prog_pack_size(void)
>>> +{
>>> + /* If vmap_allow_huge == true, use pack size of the smallest
>>> + * possible vmalloc huge page: PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes().
>>> + * Otherwise, use pack size of PAGE_SIZE.
>>> + */
>>> + return get_vmap_allow_huge() ? PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes() : PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +}
>>
>> Imho, this is making too many assumptions about implementation details. Can't we
>> just add a new module_alloc*() API instead which internally guarantees allocating
>> huge pages when enabled/supported (e.g. with a __weak function as fallback)?
>
> I agree that this is making too many assumptions. But a new module_alloc_huge()
> may not work, because we need the caller to know the proper size to ask for.
> (Or maybe I misunderstood your suggestion?)
>
> How about we introduce something like
>
> /* minimal size to get huge pages from vmalloc. If not possible,
> * return 0 (or -1?)
> */
> int vmalloc_hpage_min_size(void)
> {
> return vmap_allow_huge ? PMD_SIZE * num_online_nodes() : 0;
> }
And that would live inside mm/vmalloc.c and is exported to users ...
> /* minimal size to get huge pages from module_alloc */
> int module_alloc_hpage_min_size(void)
> {
> return vmalloc_hpage_min_size();
> }
... and this one as wrapper in module alloc infra with __weak attr?
> static inline int bpf_prog_pack_size(void)
> {
> return module_alloc_hpage_min_size() ? : PAGE_SIZE;
> }
Could probably work. It's not nice, but at least in the corresponding places so it's
not exposed / hard coded inside bpf and assuming implementation details which could
potentially break later on.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists