On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:30 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 15:31, Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests.
> > >
> > > Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless
> > > user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the
> > > output of the batched operations.
> >
> > I wonder if a user has to be more careful, though? This
> > BPF_PERCPU_TYPE, __bpf_percpu_align and bpf_percpu macros seem to
> > create just another opaque layer. It actually seems detrimental to me.
> >
> > I'd rather emphasize in the documentation (e.g., in
> > bpf_map_lookup_elem) that all per-cpu maps are aligning values at 8
> > bytes, so user has to make sure that array of values provided to
> > bpf_map_lookup_elem() has each element size rounded up to 8.
>
> From my own experience, the documentation has been a very unreliable
> source, to the point that I usually jump to the code first rather than
> to the documentation nowadays[1].
I totally agree, which is why I think improving docs is necessary.
Unfortunately docs are usually lagging behind, because generally
people hate writing documentation and it's just a fact of life.
> Tests, samples and projects have always been my source of truth and we
> are already lacking a bit on those as well. For instance, the samples
> directory contains programs that are very outdated (I didn't check if
> they are still functional).
Yeah, samples/bpf is bitrotting. selftests/bpf, though, are maintained
and run regularly and vigorously, so making sure they set a good and
realistic example is a good.
> I think macros like these will be present in most of the project
> dealing with batched operations and as a daily user of libbpf I don't
> see how this could not be offered by libbpf as a standardized way to
> declare percpu types.
If I were using per-CPU maps a lot, I'd make sure I use u64 and
aligned(8) types and bypass all the macro ugliness, because there is
no need in it and it just hurts readability. So I don't want libbpf to
incentivize bad choices here by providing seemingly convenient macros.
Users have to be aware that values are 8-byte aligned/extended. That's
not a big secret and not a very obscure thing to learn anyways.
>
> [1] So batched operations were introduced a little bit over a 1 year
> ago and yet the only reference I had for it was the selftests. The
> documentation is on my TODO list, but that's just because I have to
> deal with it daily.
>
Yeah, please do contribute them!
> >
> > In practice, I'd recommend users to always use __u64/__s64 when having
> > primitive integers in a map (they are not saving anything by using
> > int, it just creates an illusion of savings). Well, maybe on 32-bit
> > arches they would save a bit of CPU, but not on typical 64-bit
> > architectures. As for using structs as values, always mark them as
> > __attribute__((aligned(8))).
> >
> > Basically, instead of obscuring the real use some more, let's clarify
> > and maybe even provide some examples in documentation?
>
> Why not do both?
>
> Provide a standardized way to declare a percpu value with examples and
> a good documentation with examples.
> Let the user decide what is best for his use case.
What is a standardized way? A custom macro with struct { T v; }
inside? That's just one way of doing this, and it requires another
macro to just access the value (because no one wants to write
my_values[cpu].v, right?). I'd say the standardized way of reading
values should look like `my_values[cpu]`, that's it. For that you use
64-bit integers or 8-byte aligned structs. And don't mess with macros
for that at all.
So if a user insists on using int/short/char as value, they can do
their own struct { char v} __aligned(8) trick. But I'd advise such
users to reconsider and use u64. If they are using structs for values,
always mark __aligned(8) and forget about this in the rest of your
code.
As for allocating memory for array of per-cpu values, there is also no
single standardized way we can come up with. It could be malloc() on
the heap. Or alloca() on the stack. Or it could be pre-allocated one
for up to maximum supported CPUs. Or... whatever makes sense.
So I think the best way to handle all that is to clearly explain how
reading per-CPU values from per-CPU maps works in BPF and what are the
memory layout expectations.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the
> > > percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map
> > > value types.
> > >
> > > Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 ---
> > > .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++---------
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++---
> > > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data)
> > > static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data)
> > > {
> > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus();
> > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values);
> > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus];
> > > int key, next_key, fd, i;
> > >
> > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key),
> > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0);
> > > + sizeof(long), 2, 0);
> > > if (fd < 0) {
> > > printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno));
> > > exit(1);
> > > @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data)
> > > static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void)
> > > {
> > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus();
> >
> > This just sets a bad example for anyone using selftests as an
> > aspiration for their own code. bpf_num_possible_cpus() does exit(1)
> > internally if libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns error. No one should
> > write real production code like that. So maybe let's provide a better
> > example instead with error handling and malloc (or perhaps alloca)?
>
> OK. Makes sense.
>
> >
> > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values);
> > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus];
> > > /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu
> > > * allocator more than anything else
> > > */
> > > @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void)
> > > int key, fd, i;
> > >
> > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key),
> > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0);
> > > + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0);
> > > if (fd < 0) {
> > > printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n",
> > > strerror(errno));
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
