On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 12:05:59PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: <snip> > I believe there are some inaccuracies, though. As far as I see it, > local_freelist_check corresponds to __local_list_pop_free in the common > LRU case, specifically, to checking its return value; use_local_node > corresponds to returning that value; and common_lru_check corresponds > to bpf_lru_pop_free (for both common and percpu LRU, that's where the > distinction is made). Ah yes, thanks for the pointers, will fix up. I started with reviewing the shared case since I was primarily interested in the behaviour there, then I added the other cases later. Adding the function names was one of the later ideas but it's difficult to get accurate. > > + local_freelist_check [shape=diamond,fillcolor=1, > > + label="Local freelist\nnode available?"]; > > + // The following corresponds to __local_list_pop_free() for common LRU case. > > + use_local_node [shape=rectangle, > > + label="Use node owned\nby this CPU"] > > + > > + common_lru_check [shape=diamond, > > + label="Map created with\ncommon LRU?\n(!BPF_NO_COMMON_LRU)"]; > > Nit: the exact flag name is BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU. Will fix. > Thanks again for this patch, this piece of documentation really helped > me understand internals of the LRU hashmap. Glad to hear, thanks for the feedback on the patch!
