From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU flag for percpu_array map
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:47:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <592129b2-0442-4b10-8b56-0e15d2ce113e@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZCzd0VGNBoLOd=ENxPnwsynuwvKdNYkKhUc7ARFCudSQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2025/7/12 02:10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:04 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces support for the BPF_F_CPU flag in percpu_array maps
>> to allow updating or looking up values for specified CPUs or for all CPUs
>> with a single value.
>>
>
> For next revision, please drop RFC tag, so this is tested and reviewed
> as a proper patch set.
>
Sure. I'll drop it.
>> This enhancement enables:
>>
>> * Efficient update of all CPUs using a single value when cpu == (u32)~0.
>> * Targeted update or lookup for a specified CPU otherwise.
>>
>> The flag is passed via:
>>
>> * map_flags in bpf_percpu_array_update() along with embedded cpu field.
>> * elem_flags in generic_map_update_batch() along with separated cpu field.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> include/linux/bpf.h | 3 +-
>> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++
>> kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++------------
>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 7 +++++
>> 5 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> + cpu = (u32)(flags >> 32);
>> + flags &= (u32)~0;
>> + if (unlikely(flags > BPF_F_CPU))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (unlikely((flags & BPF_F_CPU) && cpu >= num_possible_cpus()))
>> + return -E2BIG;
>> +
>> /* per_cpu areas are zero-filled and bpf programs can only
>> * access 'value_size' of them, so copying rounded areas
>> * will not leak any kernel data
>> @@ -313,10 +320,15 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_copy(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value)
>> size = array->elem_size;
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> pptr = array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask];
>> - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> - copy_map_value_long(map, value + off, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
>> - check_and_init_map_value(map, value + off);
>> - off += size;
>> + if (flags & BPF_F_CPU) {
>> + copy_map_value_long(map, value, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
>> + check_and_init_map_value(map, value);
>> + } else {
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + copy_map_value_long(map, value + off, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
>> + check_and_init_map_value(map, value + off);
>> + off += size;
>> + }
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> return 0;
>> @@ -387,13 +399,21 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>> struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map);
>> u32 index = *(u32 *)key;
>> void __percpu *pptr;
>> - int cpu, off = 0;
>> - u32 size;
>> + bool reuse_value;
>> + u32 size, cpu;
>> + int off = 0;
>>
>> - if (unlikely(map_flags > BPF_EXIST))
>> + cpu = (u32)(map_flags >> 32);
>> + map_flags = map_flags & (u32)~0;
>
> be consistent, use &= approach as above
>
Ack.
>> + if (unlikely(map_flags > BPF_F_CPU))
>> /* unknown flags */
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + if (unlikely((map_flags & BPF_F_CPU) && cpu != BPF_ALL_CPUS &&
>> + cpu >= num_possible_cpus()))
>> + /* invalid cpu */
>> + return -E2BIG;
>> +
>> if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries))
>> /* all elements were pre-allocated, cannot insert a new one */
>> return -E2BIG;
>> @@ -409,12 +429,22 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>> * so no kernel data leaks possible
>> */
>> size = array->elem_size;
>> + reuse_value = (map_flags & BPF_F_CPU) && cpu == BPF_ALL_CPUS;
>
> I find "reuse_value" name extremely misleading, I stumble upon this
> every time (because "value" is ambiguous, is it the source value or
> map value we are updating?). Please drop it, there is no need for it,
> just do `map_flags & BPF_F_CPU` check in that for_each_possible_cpu
> loop below
>
Ack.
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> pptr = array->pptrs[index & array->index_mask];
>> - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> - copy_map_value_long(map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value + off);
>> + if ((map_flags & BPF_F_CPU) && cpu != BPF_ALL_CPUS) {
>> + copy_map_value_long(map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value);
>> bpf_obj_free_fields(array->map.record, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
>> - off += size;
>> + } else {
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + if (!reuse_value) {
>> + copy_map_value_long(map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value + off);
>> + off += size;
>> + } else {
>> + copy_map_value_long(map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value);
>> + }
>
> simpler and less duplication:
>
> copy_map_value_long(map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value + off);
> /*
> * same user-provided value is used if BPF_F_CPU is specified,
> * otherwise value is an array of per-cpu values
> */
> if (!(map_flags & BPF_F_CPU))
> off += size;
>
LGTM.
>> + bpf_obj_free_fields(array->map.record, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
>> + }
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> index 7db7182a3057..a3ce0cdecb3c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> @@ -129,8 +129,12 @@ bool bpf_map_write_active(const struct bpf_map *map)
>> return atomic64_read(&map->writecnt) != 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static u32 bpf_map_value_size(const struct bpf_map *map)
>> +static u32 bpf_map_value_size(const struct bpf_map *map, u64 flags)
>> {
>> + if ((flags & BPF_F_CPU) &&
>> + map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY)
>
> formatting is off, keep single line
>
Ack.
>> + return round_up(map->value_size, 8);
>> +
>> if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH ||
>> map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH ||
>> map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY ||
>> @@ -312,7 +316,7 @@ static int bpf_map_copy_value(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>> map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH) {
>> err = bpf_percpu_hash_copy(map, key, value);
>> } else if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY) {
>> - err = bpf_percpu_array_copy(map, key, value);
>> + err = bpf_percpu_array_copy(map, key, value, flags);
>> } else if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE) {
>> err = bpf_percpu_cgroup_storage_copy(map, key, value);
>> } else if (map->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK_TRACE) {
>> @@ -1662,7 +1666,7 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
>> if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_ELEM))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - if (attr->flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK)
>> + if ((attr->flags & (u32)~0) & ~(BPF_F_LOCK | BPF_F_CPU))
>
> nit: this whole `attr->flags & (u32)~0` looks like an over-engineered
> `(u32)attr->flags`...
>
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> we should probably also have a condition checking that upper 32 bits
> are zero if BPF_F_CPU is not set?
>
Correct. We should check the upper 32 bits if BPF_F_CPU is not set. It
should check the flags like
`(attr->flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK) && !(attr->flags & BPF_F_CPU)`.
>>
>> CLASS(fd, f)(attr->map_fd);
>> @@ -1680,7 +1684,7 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr)
>> if (IS_ERR(key))
>> return PTR_ERR(key);
>>
>> - value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
>> + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map, attr->flags);
>>
>> err = -ENOMEM;
>> value = kvmalloc(value_size, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
>> @@ -1749,7 +1753,7 @@ static int map_update_elem(union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr)
>> goto err_put;
>> }
>>
>> - value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
>> + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map, attr->flags);
>> value = kvmemdup_bpfptr(uvalue, value_size);
>> if (IS_ERR(value)) {
>> err = PTR_ERR(value);
>> @@ -1941,19 +1945,25 @@ int generic_map_update_batch(struct bpf_map *map, struct file *map_file,
>> {
>> void __user *values = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.values);
>> void __user *keys = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.keys);
>> - u32 value_size, cp, max_count;
>> + u32 value_size, cp, max_count, cpu = attr->batch.cpu;
>> + u64 elem_flags = attr->batch.elem_flags;
>> void *key, *value;
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> - if (attr->batch.elem_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK)
>> + if (elem_flags & ~(BPF_F_LOCK | BPF_F_CPU))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - if ((attr->batch.elem_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
>> + if ((elem_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
>> !btf_record_has_field(map->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK)) {
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
>> + if ((elem_flags & BPF_F_CPU) &&
>> + map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map, elem_flags);
>> + elem_flags = (((u64)cpu) << 32) | elem_flags;
>
> nit: elem_flags |= (u64)cpu << 32;
>
> same effect, but a bit more explicitly stating "we are just adding
> stuff to elem_flags"
>
Ack.
>>
>> max_count = attr->batch.count;
>> if (!max_count)
>> @@ -1979,8 +1989,7 @@ int generic_map_update_batch(struct bpf_map *map, struct file *map_file,
>> copy_from_user(value, values + cp * value_size, value_size))
>> break;
>>
>> - err = bpf_map_update_value(map, map_file, key, value,
>> - attr->batch.elem_flags);
>> + err = bpf_map_update_value(map, map_file, key, value, elem_flags);
>>
>> if (err)
>> break;
>> @@ -2004,18 +2013,24 @@ int generic_map_lookup_batch(struct bpf_map *map,
>> void __user *ubatch = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.in_batch);
>> void __user *values = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.values);
>> void __user *keys = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->batch.keys);
>> + u32 value_size, cp, max_count, cpu = attr->batch.cpu;
>> void *buf, *buf_prevkey, *prev_key, *key, *value;
>> - u32 value_size, cp, max_count;
>> + u64 elem_flags = attr->batch.elem_flags;
>> int err;
>>
>> - if (attr->batch.elem_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK)
>> + if (elem_flags & ~(BPF_F_LOCK | BPF_F_CPU))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - if ((attr->batch.elem_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
>> + if ((elem_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) &&
>> !btf_record_has_field(map->record, BPF_SPIN_LOCK))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map);
>> + if ((elem_flags & BPF_F_CPU) &&
>> + map->map_type != BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + value_size = bpf_map_value_size(map, elem_flags);
>> + elem_flags = (((u64)cpu) << 32) | elem_flags;
>>
>
> ditto
>
Ack.
>> max_count = attr->batch.count;
>> if (!max_count)
>
> [...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-14 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 16:04 [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU flag for percpu_array map Leon Hwang
2025-07-07 16:04 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] " Leon Hwang
2025-07-11 18:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-07-14 12:47 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2025-07-07 16:04 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf, libbpf: Support BPF_F_CPU " Leon Hwang
2025-07-11 18:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-07-14 12:48 ` Leon Hwang
2025-07-07 16:04 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add case to test BPF_F_CPU Leon Hwang
2025-07-11 18:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-07-14 12:49 ` 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=592129b2-0442-4b10-8b56-0e15d2ce113e@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
/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.