Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: Reduce the scope of rcu_read_lock when updating fd map

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:15 AM John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:31 PM Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 12/14/2023 2:22 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > Hou Tao wrote:
> > > >> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>
> > > >> There is no rcu-read-lock requirement for ops->map_fd_get_ptr() or
> > > >> ops->map_fd_put_ptr(), so doesn't use rcu-read-lock for these two
> > > >> callbacks.
> > > >>
> > > >> For bpf_fd_array_map_update_elem(), accessing array->ptrs doesn't need
> > > >> rcu-read-lock because array->ptrs must still be allocated. For
> > > >> bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem(), htab_map_update_elem() only requires
> > > >> rcu-read-lock to be held to avoid the WARN_ON_ONCE(), so only use
> > > >> rcu_read_lock() during the invocation of htab_map_update_elem().
> > > >>
> > > >> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 6 ++++++
> > > >>  kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ----
> > > >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > >> index 5b9146fa825f..ec3bdcc6a3cf 100644
> > > >> --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> > > >> @@ -2523,7 +2523,13 @@ int bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, struct file *map_file,
> > > >>      if (IS_ERR(ptr))
> > > >>              return PTR_ERR(ptr);
> > > >>
> > > >> +    /* The htab bucket lock is always held during update operations in fd
> > > >> +     * htab map, and the following rcu_read_lock() is only used to avoid
> > > >> +     * the WARN_ON_ONCE in htab_map_update_elem().
> > > >> +     */
>
> Ah ok but isn't this comment wrong because you do need rcu read lock to do
> the walk with lookup_nulls_elem_raw where there is no lock being held? And
> then the subsequent copy in place is fine because you do have a lock.

Ohh. You're correct.
Not sure what I was thinking.

Hou,
could you please send a follow up to undo my braino.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux