> On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:34 AM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:39 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2019, at 8:20 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add ability to memory-map contents of BPF array map. This is extremely useful
>>> for working with BPF global data from userspace programs. It allows to avoid
>>> typical bpf_map_{lookup,update}_elem operations, improving both performance
>>> and usability.
>>>
>>> There had to be special considerations for map freezing, to avoid having
>>> writable memory view into a frozen map. To solve this issue, map freezing and
>>> mmap-ing is happening under mutex now:
>>> - if map is already frozen, no writable mapping is allowed;
>>> - if map has writable memory mappings active (accounted in map->writecnt),
>>> map freezing will keep failing with -EBUSY;
>>> - once number of writable memory mappings drops to zero, map freezing can be
>>> performed again.
>>>
>>> Only non-per-CPU arrays are supported right now. Maps with spinlocks can't be
>>> memory mapped either.
>>>
>>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
>>
>> With one nit below.
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> - if (percpu)
>>> + data_size = 0;
>>> + if (percpu) {
>>> array_size += (u64) max_entries * sizeof(void *);
>>> - else
>>> - array_size += (u64) max_entries * elem_size;
>>
>>> + } else {
>>> + if (attr->map_flags & BPF_F_MMAPABLE) {
>>> + data_size = (u64) max_entries * elem_size;
>>> + data_size = round_up(data_size, PAGE_SIZE);
>>> + } else {
>>> + array_size += (u64) max_entries * elem_size;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>>
>>> /* make sure there is no u32 overflow later in round_up() */
>>> - cost = array_size;
>>> + cost = array_size + data_size;
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a little confusing. Maybe we can do
>>
>
> I don't think I can do that without even bigger code churn. In
> non-mmap()-able case, array_size specifies the size of one chunk of
> memory, which consists of sizeof(struct bpf_array) bytes, followed by
> actual data. This is accomplished in one allocation. That's current
> case for arrays.
>
> For BPF_F_MMAPABLE case, though, we have to do 2 separate allocations,
> to make sure that mmap()-able part is allocated with vmalloc() and is
> page-aligned. So array_size keeps track of number of bytes allocated
> for struct bpf_array plus, optionally, per-cpu or non-mmapable array
> data, while data_size is explicitly for vmalloc()-ed mmap()-able chunk
> of data. If not for this, I'd just keep adjusting array_size.
>
> So the invariant for per-cpu and non-mmapable case is that data_size =
> 0, array_size = sizeof(struct bpf_array) + whatever amount of data we
> need. For mmapable case: array_size = sizeof(struct bpf_array),
> data_size = actual amount of array data.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Song
