On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:05:26PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 8:45 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 08:02:23PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko 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 plain arrays are supported right now. Maps with spinlocks
> > > can't be memory mapped either.
> > >
> > > For BPF_F_MMAPABLE array, memory allocation has to be done through vmalloc()
> > > to be mmap()'able. We also need to make sure that array data memory is
> > > page-sized and page-aligned, so we over-allocate memory in such a way that
> > > struct bpf_array is at the end of a single page of memory with array->value
> > > being aligned with the start of the second page. On deallocation we need to
> > > accomodate this memory arrangement to free vmalloc()'ed memory correctly.
> > >
> > > One important consideration regarding how memory-mapping subsystem functions.
> > > Memory-mapping subsystem provides few optional callbacks, among them open()
> > > and close(). close() is called for each memory region that is unmapped, so
> > > that users can decrease their reference counters and free up resources, if
> > > necessary. open() is *almost* symmetrical: it's called for each memory region
> > > that is being mapped, **except** the very first one. So bpf_map_mmap does
> > > initial refcnt bump, while open() will do any extra ones after that. Thus
> > > number of close() calls is equal to number of open() calls plus one more.
> > >
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/bpf.h | 11 ++--
> > > include/linux/vmalloc.h | 1 +
> > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++
> > > kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++---
> > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > mm/vmalloc.c | 20 +++++++
> > > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++
> > > 7 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > index 6fbe599fb977..8021fce98868 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/err.h>
> > > #include <linux/rbtree_latch.h>
> > > #include <linux/numa.h>
> > > +#include <linux/mm_types.h>
> > > #include <linux/wait.h>
> > > #include <linux/u64_stats_sync.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -66,6 +67,7 @@ struct bpf_map_ops {
> > > u64 *imm, u32 off);
> > > int (*map_direct_value_meta)(const struct bpf_map *map,
> > > u64 imm, u32 *off);
> > > + int (*map_mmap)(struct bpf_map *map, struct vm_area_struct *vma);
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct bpf_map_memory {
> > > @@ -94,9 +96,10 @@ struct bpf_map {
> > > u32 btf_value_type_id;
> > > struct btf *btf;
> > > struct bpf_map_memory memory;
> > > + char name[BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN];
> > > bool unpriv_array;
> > > - bool frozen; /* write-once */
> > > - /* 48 bytes hole */
> > > + bool frozen; /* write-once; write-protected by freeze_mutex */
> > > + /* 22 bytes hole */
> > >
> > > /* The 3rd and 4th cacheline with misc members to avoid false sharing
> > > * particularly with refcounting.
> > > @@ -104,7 +107,8 @@ struct bpf_map {
> > > atomic64_t refcnt ____cacheline_aligned;
> > > atomic64_t usercnt;
> > > struct work_struct work;
> > > - char name[BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN];
> > > + struct mutex freeze_mutex;
> > > + u64 writecnt; /* writable mmap cnt; protected by freeze_mutex */
> > > };
> >
> > Can the mutex be moved into bpf_array instead of being in bpf_map that is
> > shared across all map types?
>
> No, freezing logic is common to all maps. Same for writecnt and
> mmap()-ing overall.
How mmap is going to work for hash map ? and for prog_array?
