Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:35 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > diff --git a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
>> > index 2b2ffb97018b..f47ee513cb7c 100644
>> > --- a/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
>> > +++ b/samples/bpf/map_perf_test_kern.c
>> > @@ -9,25 +9,26 @@
>> > #include <linux/version.h>
>> > #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
>> > #include "bpf_helpers.h"
>> > +#include "bpf_legacy.h"
>> >
>> > #define MAX_ENTRIES 1000
>> > #define MAX_NR_CPUS 1024
>> >
>> > -struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") hash_map = {
>> > +struct bpf_map_def_legacy SEC("maps") hash_map = {
>> > .type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH,
>> > .key_size = sizeof(u32),
>> > .value_size = sizeof(long),
>> > .max_entries = MAX_ENTRIES,
>> > };
>>
>> Why switch these when they're not actually using any of the extra fields
>> in map_def_legacy?
>
> See below, they have to be uniform-sized.
>
>> >
>> > -struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") lru_hash_map = {
>> > +struct bpf_map_def_legacy SEC("maps") lru_hash_map = {
>> > .type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH,
>> > .key_size = sizeof(u32),
>> > .value_size = sizeof(long),
>> > .max_entries = 10000,
>> > };
>> >
>> > -struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") nocommon_lru_hash_map = {
>> > +struct bpf_map_def_legacy SEC("maps") nocommon_lru_hash_map = {
>> > .type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH,
>> > .key_size = sizeof(u32),
>> > .value_size = sizeof(long),
>> > @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") nocommon_lru_hash_map = {
>> > .map_flags = BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU,
>> > };
>> >
>> > -struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") inner_lru_hash_map = {
>> > +struct bpf_map_def_legacy SEC("maps") inner_lru_hash_map = {
>> > .type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH,
>> > .key_size = sizeof(u32),
>> > .value_size = sizeof(long),
>> > @@ -44,20 +45,20 @@ struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") inner_lru_hash_map = {
>> > .numa_node = 0,
>> > };
>>
>> Or are you just switching everything because of this one?
>
> Exactly. Another way would be to switch all but this to BTF-based one,
> but I didn't want to make this patch set even bigger, we can always do
> that later
Right, fair enough :)
-Toke
