On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:25 PM Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:55:57AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 8:47 AM Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Instead of always consuming all items from a ring buffer in a greedy
> > > way, allow to stop when the callback returns a value > 0.
> > >
> > > This allows to distinguish between an error condition and an intentional
> > > stop condition by returning a non-negative non-zero value from the ring
> > > buffer callback.
> > >
> > > This can be useful, for example, to consume just a single item from the
> > > ring buffer.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> > > index aacb64278a01..dd8908eb3204 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c
> > > @@ -265,6 +265,14 @@ static int64_t ringbuf_process_ring(struct ring *r)
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > > cnt++;
> > > + if (err > 0) {
> >
> > So libbpf already stops at any err < 0 (and sets correct consumer
> > pos). So you could already get desired behavior by just returning your
> > own error code. If you need count, you'd have to count it yourself
> > through custom context, that's a bit of inconvenience.
>
> Yep, that's exactly what I'm doing right now.
>
> To give more context, here's the code:
> https://github.com/sched-ext/scx/blob/b7c06b9ed9f72cad83c31e39e9c4e2cfd8683a55/rust/scx_rustland_core/src/bpf.rs#L217
>
cool, great that you at least have a work-around
> >
> > But on the other hand, currently if user callback returns anything > 0
> > they keep going and that return value is ignored. Your change will
> > break any such user pretty badly. So I'm a bit hesitant to do this.
>
> So, returning a value > 0 should have the same behavior as returning 0?
yes, that's what the contract is right now
> Why any user callback would return > 0 then?
this is not the code I can control and ringbuf API was like that for a
long time, which is why I'm saying I'm hesitant to make these changes
>
> >
> > Is there any reason you can't just return error code (libbpf doesn't
> > do anything with it, just passes it back, so it might as well be
> > `-cnt`, if you need that).
>
> Sure, I can keep using my special error code to stop. It won't be a
> problem for my particular use case.
>
> Actually, one thing that it would be nice to have is a way to consume up
> to a certain amount of items, let's say I need to copy multiple items
> from the ring buffer to a limited user buffer. But that would require a
> new API I guess, in order to pass the max counter... right?
Yes, definitely a new API, but that's not a big problem. Though I'm
wondering if ring_buffer__consume_one() would be a more flexible API,
where user would have more flexible control. Either way libbpf is
doing smp_store_release() after each consumed element, so I don't
think it will have any downsides in terms of performance.
So please consider contributing a patch for this new API.
>
> Thanks,
> -Andrea
>
> >
> > pw-bot: cr
> >
> > > + /* update consumer pos and return the
> > > + * total amount of items consumed.
> > > + */
> > > + smp_store_release(r->consumer_pos,
> > > + cons_pos);
> > > + goto done;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > smp_store_release(r->consumer_pos, cons_pos);
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> > >
