On 10/18/22 11:11 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:08 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/18/22 10:17 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:08 AM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
'#define BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_STORAGE BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_LOCAL_STORAGE /*
depreciated by BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_STORAGE */' in the uapi.
The new cgroup storage uses a shorter name "cgrp", like
BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_STORAGE and bpf_cgrp_storage_get()?
This might work and the naming convention will be similar to
existing sk/inode/task storage.
+1, CGRP_STORAGE sounds good!
+1 from me as well.
Something like this ?
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 17f61338f8f8..13dcb2418847 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -922,7 +922,8 @@ enum bpf_map_type {
BPF_MAP_TYPE_CPUMAP,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_XSKMAP,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKHASH,
- BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_STORAGE,
+ BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_STORAGE_DEPRECATED,
+ BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_STORAGE = BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGROUP_STORAGE_DEPRECATED,
+1
BPF_MAP_TYPE_REUSEPORT_SOCKARRAY,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_QUEUE,
@@ -935,6 +936,7 @@ enum bpf_map_type {
BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_BLOOM_FILTER,
BPF_MAP_TYPE_USER_RINGBUF,
+ BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_STORAGE,
};
Sounds good to me. Will do this in the next revision.
What are we going to do with BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE ?
Probably should come up with a replacement as well?
Yeah, need to come up with a percpu answer for it. The percpu usage has never
come up on the sk storage and also the later task/inode storage. or the user is
just getting by with an array like map's value.
May be the bpf prog can call bpf_mem_alloc() to alloc the percpu memory in the
future and then store it as the kptr in the BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_STORAGE?
A percpu cgroup storage would be very beneficial for cgroup statistics
collection, things like the selftest in
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cgroup_hierarchical_stats.c
currently uses a percpu hashmap indexed by cgroup id, so using a
percpu cgroup storage instead would be a nice upgrade.
Indeed, agree. For cgroup storage, we could have a per-cpu version
for the new mechanism so it can replace the old one as well.
Will look into this after non per-cpu version is done.
