[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <Yg/o4x6rD+oLb4Eu@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:43:47 -0800
From: sdf@...gle.com
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Call maybe_wait_bpf_programs() only once
from generic_map_delete_batch()
On 02/18, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> As stated in the comment found in maybe_wait_bpf_programs(),
> the synchronize_rcu() barrier is only needed before returning
> to userspace, not after each deletion in the batch.
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Makes sense. Probably a copy-paste from the non-batch case...
Reviewed-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> Cc: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index
> a72f63d5a7daee057bcec3fa6119aca32e2945f7..9c7a72b65eee0ec8d54d36e2c0ab9ff4962091af
> 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -1352,7 +1352,6 @@ int generic_map_delete_batch(struct bpf_map *map,
> err = map->ops->map_delete_elem(map, key);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> bpf_enable_instrumentation();
> - maybe_wait_bpf_programs(map);
> if (err)
> break;
> cond_resched();
> @@ -1361,6 +1360,8 @@ int generic_map_delete_batch(struct bpf_map *map,
> err = -EFAULT;
> kvfree(key);
> +
> + maybe_wait_bpf_programs(map);
> return err;
> }
> --
> 2.35.1.473.g83b2b277ed-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists