On 8/12/24 09:58, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 4:58 PM Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+
+ user_data_mmap = mmap(NULL, sizeof(*user_data_mmap), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_NEQ(user_data_mmap, MAP_FAILED, "mmap"))
+ return;
+
+ memcpy(user_data_mmap, &user_data_mmap_v, sizeof(*user_data_mmap));
+ value.udata_mmap = user_data_mmap;
+ value.udata = &user_data;
There shouldn't be a need to do mmap(). It's too much memory overhead.
The user should be able to write:
static __thread struct user_data udata;
value.udata = &udata;
bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, my_task_fd, &value)
and do it once.
Later multi thread user code will just access "udata".
No map lookups.
mmap() is not necessary here. There are two pointers here.
udata_mmap one is used to test the case crossing page boundary although
in the current RFC it fails to do it. It will be fixed later.
udata one works just like what you have described, except user_data is a
local variable.
If sizeof(udata) is small enough the kernel will pin either
one or two pages (if udata crosses page boundary).
So no extra memory consumption by the user process while the kernel
pins a page or two.
In a good case it's one page and no extra vmap.
I wonder whether we should enforce that one page case.
It's not hard for users to write:
static __thread struct user_data udata __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(udata))));
With one page restriction, the implementation would be much simpler. If
you think it is a reasonable restriction, I would enforce this rule.
