On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 7:49 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/16/21 18:24, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:14 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:21:26PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > >>> On 12/15/21 22:07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > >>>>> I'm skeptical I'll be able to measure inlining one function, > >>>>> variability between boots/runs is usually greater and would hide it. > >>>> > >>>> Right, that's why I suggested to mirror what we do in set/getsockopt > >>>> instead of the new extra CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED. But I'll leave it up > >>>> to you, Martin and the rest. > >> I also suggested to try to stay with one way for fullsock context in v2 > >> but it is for code readability reason. > >> > >> How about calling CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() just next to cgroup_bpf_enabled() > >> in BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_*SOCKOPT_*() instead ? > > > > SG! > > > >> It is because both cgroup_bpf_enabled() and CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() > >> want to check if there is bpf to run before proceeding everything else > >> and then I don't need to jump to the non-inline function itself to see > >> if there is other prog array empty check. > >> > >> Stan, do you have concern on an extra inlined sock_cgroup_ptr() > >> when there is bpf prog to run for set/getsockopt()? I think > >> it should be mostly noise from looking at > >> __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_*sockopt()? > > > > Yeah, my concern is also mostly about readability/consistency. Either > > __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty everywhere or this new > > CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED everywhere. I'm slightly leaning towards > > __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty because I don't believe direct > > function calls add any visible overhead and macros are ugly :-) But > > either way is fine as long as it looks consistent. > > Martin, Stanislav, do you think it's good to go? Any other concerns? > It feels it might end with bikeshedding and would be great to finally > get it done, especially since I find the issue to be pretty simple. I'll leave it up to the bpf maintainers/reviewers. Personally, I'd still prefer a respin with a consistent __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty or CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED everywhere (shouldn't be a lot of effort?)
