From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
jolsa@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
eddyz87@gmail.com, dxu@dxuuu.xyz, deso@posteo.net,
leon.hwang@linux.dev, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v9 6/7] libbpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu maps
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 23:39:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250930153942.41781-7-leon.hwang@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250930153942.41781-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev>
Add libbpf support for the BPF_F_CPU flag for percpu maps by embedding the
cpu info into the high 32 bits of:
1. **flags**: bpf_map_lookup_elem_flags(), bpf_map__lookup_elem(),
bpf_map_update_elem() and bpf_map__update_elem()
2. **opts->elem_flags**: bpf_map_lookup_batch() and
bpf_map_update_batch()
And the flag can be BPF_F_ALL_CPUS, but cannot be
'BPF_F_CPU | BPF_F_ALL_CPUS'.
Behavior:
* If the flag is BPF_F_ALL_CPUS, the update is applied across all CPUs.
* If the flag is BPF_F_CPU, it updates value only to the specified CPU.
* If the flag is BPF_F_CPU, lookup value only from the specified CPU.
* lookup does not support BPF_F_ALL_CPUS.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 8 ++++++++
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 21 ++++++++-------------
3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
index e983a3e40d612..ffd93feffd71d 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
@@ -289,6 +289,14 @@ LIBBPF_API int bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(int fd, void *in_batch,
* Update spin_lock-ed map elements. This must be
* specified if the map value contains a spinlock.
*
+ * **BPF_F_CPU**
+ * As for percpu maps, update value on the specified CPU. And the cpu
+ * info is embedded into the high 32 bits of **opts->elem_flags**.
+ *
+ * **BPF_F_ALL_CPUS**
+ * As for percpu maps, update value across all CPUs. This flag cannot
+ * be used with BPF_F_CPU at the same time.
+ *
* @param fd BPF map file descriptor
* @param keys pointer to an array of *count* keys
* @param values pointer to an array of *count* values
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index f92083f51bdb3..4f73a54c0a81f 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -10671,7 +10671,7 @@ bpf_object__find_map_fd_by_name(const struct bpf_object *obj, const char *name)
}
static int validate_map_op(const struct bpf_map *map, size_t key_sz,
- size_t value_sz, bool check_value_sz)
+ size_t value_sz, bool check_value_sz, __u64 flags)
{
if (!map_is_created(map)) /* map is not yet created */
return -ENOENT;
@@ -10698,6 +10698,20 @@ static int validate_map_op(const struct bpf_map *map, size_t key_sz,
int num_cpu = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
size_t elem_sz = roundup(map->def.value_size, 8);
+ if (flags & (BPF_F_CPU | BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)) {
+ if ((flags & BPF_F_CPU) && (flags & BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)) {
+ pr_warn("map '%s': BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS are mutually exclusive\n",
+ map->name);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (map->def.value_size != value_sz) {
+ pr_warn("map '%s': unexpected value size %zu provided for either BPF_F_CPU or BPF_F_ALL_CPUS, expected %u\n",
+ map->name, value_sz, map->def.value_size);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ break;
+ }
+
if (value_sz != num_cpu * elem_sz) {
pr_warn("map '%s': unexpected value size %zu provided for per-CPU map, expected %d * %zu = %zd\n",
map->name, value_sz, num_cpu, elem_sz, num_cpu * elem_sz);
@@ -10722,7 +10736,7 @@ int bpf_map__lookup_elem(const struct bpf_map *map,
{
int err;
- err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true);
+ err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true, flags);
if (err)
return libbpf_err(err);
@@ -10735,7 +10749,7 @@ int bpf_map__update_elem(const struct bpf_map *map,
{
int err;
- err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true);
+ err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true, flags);
if (err)
return libbpf_err(err);
@@ -10747,7 +10761,7 @@ int bpf_map__delete_elem(const struct bpf_map *map,
{
int err;
- err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, 0, false /* check_value_sz */);
+ err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, 0, false /* check_value_sz */, flags);
if (err)
return libbpf_err(err);
@@ -10760,7 +10774,7 @@ int bpf_map__lookup_and_delete_elem(const struct bpf_map *map,
{
int err;
- err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true);
+ err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, value_sz, true, flags);
if (err)
return libbpf_err(err);
@@ -10772,7 +10786,7 @@ int bpf_map__get_next_key(const struct bpf_map *map,
{
int err;
- err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, 0, false /* check_value_sz */);
+ err = validate_map_op(map, key_sz, 0, false /* check_value_sz */, 0);
if (err)
return libbpf_err(err);
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
index 5118d0a90e243..7c38b2e546080 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
@@ -1196,12 +1196,13 @@ LIBBPF_API struct bpf_map *bpf_map__inner_map(struct bpf_map *map);
* @param key_sz size in bytes of key data, needs to match BPF map definition's **key_size**
* @param value pointer to memory in which looked up value will be stored
* @param value_sz size in byte of value data memory; it has to match BPF map
- * definition's **value_size**. For per-CPU BPF maps value size has to be
- * a product of BPF map value size and number of possible CPUs in the system
- * (could be fetched with **libbpf_num_possible_cpus()**). Note also that for
- * per-CPU values value size has to be aligned up to closest 8 bytes for
- * alignment reasons, so expected size is: `round_up(value_size, 8)
- * * libbpf_num_possible_cpus()`.
+ * definition's **value_size**. For per-CPU BPF maps, value size can be
+ * `value_size` if either **BPF_F_CPU** or **BPF_F_ALL_CPUS** is specified
+ * in **flags**, otherwise a product of BPF map value size and number of
+ * possible CPUs in the system (could be fetched with
+ * **libbpf_num_possible_cpus()**). Note also that for per-CPU values value
+ * size has to be aligned up to closest 8 bytes, so expected size is:
+ * `round_up(value_size, 8) * libbpf_num_possible_cpus()`.
* @flags extra flags passed to kernel for this operation
* @return 0, on success; negative error, otherwise
*
@@ -1219,13 +1220,7 @@ LIBBPF_API int bpf_map__lookup_elem(const struct bpf_map *map,
* @param key pointer to memory containing bytes of the key
* @param key_sz size in bytes of key data, needs to match BPF map definition's **key_size**
* @param value pointer to memory containing bytes of the value
- * @param value_sz size in byte of value data memory; it has to match BPF map
- * definition's **value_size**. For per-CPU BPF maps value size has to be
- * a product of BPF map value size and number of possible CPUs in the system
- * (could be fetched with **libbpf_num_possible_cpus()**). Note also that for
- * per-CPU values value size has to be aligned up to closest 8 bytes for
- * alignment reasons, so expected size is: `round_up(value_size, 8)
- * * libbpf_num_possible_cpus()`.
+ * @param value_sz refer to **bpf_map__lookup_elem**'s description.'
* @flags extra flags passed to kernel for this operation
* @return 0, on success; negative error, otherwise
*
--
2.51.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-30 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-30 15:39 [PATCH bpf-next v9 0/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags for percpu maps Leon Hwang
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 1/7] bpf: Introduce internal bpf_map_check_op_flags helper function Leon Hwang
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 2/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags Leon Hwang
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 3/7] bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_array maps Leon Hwang
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 4/7] bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_hash and lru_percpu_hash maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-06 22:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-08 4:48 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-13 23:17 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 5/7] bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_cgroup_storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-06 22:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-08 5:31 ` Leon Hwang
2025-09-30 15:39 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2025-09-30 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 7/7] selftests/bpf: Add cases to test BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags Leon Hwang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250930153942.41781-7-leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=deso@posteo.net \
--cc=dxu@dxuuu.xyz \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.