From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-186.mta0.migadu.com (out-186.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876CD8F58 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2025 01:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.186 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754097344; cv=none; b=ZMDrsSc+sohsDV2jZlT5URHSKBuNWJ47Qi4oevOFQHGU74IpoXjn1Nm1DFxFfwIbJ8iGotdzeEjD12M7oKO+hAI2P0bVwQ1QcflvPoK5mdLOsljCE7sYnJcd4gB51NeXePehhQSMjiFqlorMInlcL3Hi8EB+rTf2SuEiLG2Lnzs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754097344; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XllRi140UHP6kKSjRLg3kalHxYoebPJmhBubnvfMgmQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=fLT/8HNMYc8YBf1/zwYxslfQAoNxsMqtRQ6e6gIl4AjlAYIsg74qKKuJ5kODrU6pNqdhFoxtz5TEuHwYGoLNA4OmIBuNwAvupjvKwHYYsxauC/OK7R3SEu3uq9TQpCYX7Az7HPX3ptB/Xrp2FXhs1HBOD5BobKxs27DBRoUVc5o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=V2BoBhr0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.186 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="V2BoBhr0" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1754097339; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=h7CqocdHB+Gme9uAgqSHloH/JWnrTybWn9Kc2ZVppWY=; b=V2BoBhr0bDjX3UhVPD0ee7jfTMD7I5eJeoj3CFruCNHS8m6+AmapdGmQ6PkG3+8ot/V/9O er+CbXSLhRdnxng8At09ixvIweCDxSuFzj+M7kGmi51SG5Z4mMUOlvbXvJka6ar9acK4MJ qps9orS6tOoy8FKw3O8JiI+fMFKwbnY= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 18:15:33 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 06/11] bpf: Remove task local storage percpu counter To: Amery Hung Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, memxor@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, martin.lau@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, haoluo@google.com, kernel-team@meta.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <20250729182550.185356-1-ameryhung@gmail.com> <20250729182550.185356-7-ameryhung@gmail.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20250729182550.185356-7-ameryhung@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 7/29/25 11:25 AM, Amery Hung wrote: > kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c | 149 ++++------------------------------ nice. > +BPF_CALL_5(bpf_task_storage_get, struct bpf_map *, map, struct task_struct *, > + task, void *, value, u64, flags, gfp_t, gfp_flags) > { > struct bpf_local_storage_data *sdata; > > - sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, nobusy); > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!bpf_rcu_lock_held()); > + if (flags & ~BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE || !task) > + return (unsigned long)NULL; > + > + sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, true); > if (sdata) > - return sdata->data; > + return (unsigned long)sdata->data; > > /* only allocate new storage, when the task is refcounted */ > if (refcount_read(&task->usage) && > - (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE) && nobusy) { > + (flags & BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE)) { > sdata = bpf_local_storage_update( > task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value, > BPF_NOEXIST, false, gfp_flags); > - return IS_ERR(sdata) ? NULL : sdata->data; > + WARN_ON(IS_ERR(sdata)); A nit for now. ok during development/RFC. This will eventually need to be removed. e.g. it should not WARN_ON ENOMEM.