> On Nov 2, 2020, at 9:25 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:49 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add support for deduplication split BTFs. When deduplicating split BTF, base
>>> BTF is considered to be immutable and can't be modified or adjusted. 99% of
>>> BTF deduplication logic is left intact (module some type numbering adjustments).
>>> There are only two differences.
>>>
>>> First, each type in base BTF gets hashed (expect VAR and DATASEC, of course,
>>> those are always considered to be self-canonical instances) and added into
>>> a table of canonical table candidates. Hashing is a shallow, fast operation,
>>> so mostly eliminates the overhead of having entire base BTF to be a part of
>>> BTF dedup.
>>>
>>> Second difference is very critical and subtle. While deduplicating split BTF
>>> types, it is possible to discover that one of immutable base BTF BTF_KIND_FWD
>>> types can and should be resolved to a full STRUCT/UNION type from the split
>>> BTF part. This is, obviously, can't happen because we can't modify the base
>>> BTF types anymore. So because of that, any type in split BTF that directly or
>>> indirectly references that newly-to-be-resolved FWD type can't be considered
>>> to be equivalent to the corresponding canonical types in base BTF, because
>>> that would result in a loss of type resolution information. So in such case,
>>> split BTF types will be deduplicated separately and will cause some
>>> duplication of type information, which is unavoidable.
>>>
>>> With those two changes, the rest of the algorithm manages to deduplicate split
>>> BTF correctly, pointing all the duplicates to their canonical counter-parts in
>>> base BTF, but also is deduplicating whatever unique types are present in split
>>> BTF on their own.
>>>
>>> Also, theoretically, split BTF after deduplication could end up with either
>>> empty type section or empty string section. This is handled by libbpf
>>> correctly in one of previous patches in the series.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
>>
>> With some nits:
>>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> /* remap string offsets */
>>> err = btf_for_each_str_off(d, strs_dedup_remap_str_off, d);
>>> @@ -3553,6 +3582,63 @@ static bool btf_compat_fnproto(struct btf_type *t1, struct btf_type *t2)
>>> return true;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> An overview comment about bpf_deup_prep() will be great.
>
> ok
>
>>
>>> +static int btf_dedup_prep(struct btf_dedup *d)
>>> +{
>>> + struct btf_type *t;
>>> + int type_id;
>>> + long h;
>>> +
>>> + if (!d->btf->base_btf)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + for (type_id = 1; type_id < d->btf->start_id; type_id++)
>>> + {
>>
>> Move "{" to previous line?
>
> yep, my bad
>
>>
>>> + t = btf_type_by_id(d->btf, type_id);
>>> +
>>> + /* all base BTF types are self-canonical by definition */
>>> + d->map[type_id] = type_id;
>>> +
>>> + switch (btf_kind(t)) {
>>> + case BTF_KIND_VAR:
>>> + case BTF_KIND_DATASEC:
>>> + /* VAR and DATASEC are never hash/deduplicated */
>>> + continue;
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> /* we are going to reuse hypot_map to store compaction remapping */
>>> d->hypot_map[0] = 0;
>>> - for (i = 1; i <= d->btf->nr_types; i++)
>>> - d->hypot_map[i] = BTF_UNPROCESSED_ID;
>>> + /* base BTF types are not renumbered */
>>> + for (id = 1; id < d->btf->start_id; id++)
>>> + d->hypot_map[id] = id;
>>> + for (i = 0, id = d->btf->start_id; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++, id++)
>>> + d->hypot_map[id] = BTF_UNPROCESSED_ID;
>>
>> We don't really need i in the loop, shall we just do
>> for (id = d->btf->start_id; id < d->btf->start_id + d->btf->nr_types; id++)
>> ?
>>
>
> I prefer the loop with i iterating over the count of types, it seems
> more "obviously correct". For simple loop like this I could do
>
> for (i = 0; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++)
> d->hypot_map[d->start_id + i] = ...;
>
> But for the more complicated one below I found that maintaining id as
> part of the for loop control block is a bit cleaner. So I just stuck
> to the consistent pattern across all of them.
How about
for (i = 0; i < d->btf->nr_types; i++) {
id = d->start_id + i;
...
?
I would expect for loop with two loop variable to do some tricks, like two
termination conditions, or another conditional id++ somewhere in the loop.
Thanks,
Song
