On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:55 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add three new kfuncs for bpf_iter_cpumask.
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_new
> > KF_RCU is defined because the cpumask must be a RCU trusted pointer
> > such as task->cpus_ptr.
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_next
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy
> >
> > These new kfuncs facilitate the iteration of percpu data, such as
> > runqueues, psi_cgroup_cpu, and more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/cpumask.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > index 2e73533a3811..c6019368d6b1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > @@ -422,6 +422,85 @@ __bpf_kfunc u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
> > return cpumask_weight(cpumask);
> > }
> >
> > +struct bpf_iter_cpumask {
> > + __u64 __opaque[2];
> > +} __aligned(8);
> > +
> > +struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern {
> > + struct cpumask *mask;
> > + int cpu;
> > +} __aligned(8);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_new() - Create a new bpf_iter_cpumask for a specified cpumask
>
> I'd say "Initialize a new CPU mask iterator for a given CPU mask"?
> "new bpf_iter_cpumask" is both confusing and misleading (we don't
> create it, we fill provided struct)
will change it.
>
> > + * @it: The new bpf_iter_cpumask to be created.
> > + * @mask: The cpumask to be iterated over.
> > + *
> > + * This function initializes a new bpf_iter_cpumask structure for iterating over
> > + * the specified CPU mask. It assigns the provided cpumask to the newly created
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask @it for subsequent iteration operations.
>
> The description lgtm.
>
> > + *
> > + * On success, 0 is returen. On failure, ERR is returned.
>
> typo: returned
will fix it.
>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_cpumask_new(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) > sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) !=
> > + __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> > +
> > + kit->mask = bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_ma, cpumask_size());
> > + if (!kit->mask)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + cpumask_copy(kit->mask, mask);
> > + kit->cpu = -1;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_next() - Get the next CPU in a bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + *
> > + * This function retrieves a pointer to the number of the next CPU within the
>
> "function returns a pointer to a number representing the ID of the
> next CPU in CPU mask" ?
will change it.
>
> > + * specified bpf_iter_cpumask. It allows sequential access to CPUs within the
> > + * cpumask. If there are no further CPUs available, it returns NULL.
> > + *
> > + * Returns a pointer to the number of the next CPU in the cpumask or NULL if no
> > + * further CPUs.
>
> this and last sentence before this basically repeat the same twice,
> let's keep just one?
will change it.
>
>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_cpumask_next(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > + const struct cpumask *mask = kit->mask;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + if (!mask)
> > + return NULL;
> > + cpu = cpumask_next(kit->cpu, mask);
> > + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + kit->cpu = cpu;
> > + return &kit->cpu;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy() - Destroy a bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask to be destroyed.
> > + *
> > + * Destroy the resource assiciated with the bpf_iter_cpumask.
>
> typo: associated
will fix it.
>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +
> > + if (!kit->mask)
> > + return;
> > + bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->mask);
> > +}
> > +
> > __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> >
> > BTF_SET8_START(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
> > @@ -450,6 +529,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_copy, KF_RCU)
> > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_distribute, KF_RCU)
> > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute, KF_RCU)
> > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_weight, KF_RCU)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_RCU)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> > BTF_SET8_END(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
>
> Seems like you'll have to rebase, there is a merge conflict with
> recently landed changes.
will do it.
>
>
> >
> > static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set cpumask_kfunc_set = {
> > --
> > 2.39.1
> >
--
Regards
Yafang
