Hi,
On 7/4/2023 10:34 PM, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 09:56:36PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 6/30/2023 4:25 PM, Anton Protopopov wrote:
>>> Initialize and utilize the per-cpu insertions/deletions counters for hash-based
>>> maps. Non-trivial changes only apply to the preallocated maps for which the
>>> {inc,dec}_elem_count functions are not called, as there's no need in counting
>>> elements to sustain proper map operations.
>>>
>>> To increase/decrease percpu counters for preallocated maps we add raw calls to
>>> the bpf_map_{inc,dec}_elem_count functions so that the impact is minimal. For
>>> dynamically allocated maps we add corresponding calls to the existing
>>> {inc,dec}_elem_count functions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
>>> index 56d3da7d0bc6..faaef4fd3df0 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
>>> @@ -581,8 +581,14 @@ static struct bpf_map *htab_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> + err = bpf_map_init_elem_count(&htab->map);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto free_extra_elements;
>> Considering the per-cpu counter is not always needed, is it a good idea
>> to make the elem_count being optional by introducing a new map flag ?
> Per-map-flag or a static key? For me it looked like just doing an unconditional
> `inc` for a per-cpu variable is better vs. doing a check then `inc` or an
> unconditional jump.
Sorry I didn't make it clear that I was worried about the allocated
per-cpu memory. Previous I thought the per-cpu memory is limited, but
after did some experiments I found it was almost the same as kmalloc()
which could use all available memory to fulfill the allocation request.
For a host with 72-cpus, the memory overhead for 10k hash map is about
~6MB. The overhead is tiny compared with the total available memory, but
it is avoidable.
