Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 02/10] bpf/helpers: introduce sleepable timers

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

 



On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> 
> So (and this also answers your second email today) I'm thinking at:
> - have multiple flags to control the timer (with dedicated timer_cb
>   kernel functions):
>   - BPF_F_TIMER_HRTIMER (default)
>   - BPF_F_TIMER_WORKER (no timer, just workqueue)

These two make sense, but

>   - BPF_F_TIMER_DELAYED_WORKER (hrtimer + workqueue, or actual
>     delayed_work, but that's re-implementing stuffs)

This one doesn't.
Unlike hrtimer the workqueue is non deterministic.
Requesting a callback after a specific delay only to be randomized
by the workqueue is a confusing UX to give to bpf progs.
If bpf author really want to do something like that they can implement
such anti-feature manually with two bpf_timers.

Later we'll add a selector for WQ. At that time we'd need to decide
whether to use a dedicated kthread or any of system_*_wq or WQ_BH.
For now I'd only expose 'sleepable' as a guarantee in bpf api.
Hence BPF_F_TIMER_SLEEPABLE is the only extra bit in flags for bpf_timer_start().
Not sure whether it's needed in bpf_timer_init() too.




[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