From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bpf_task_storage improvement question
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 11:37:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f956b566-e563-429f-93c0-3dd8f72d01e1@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qwinzohs4pwawth5i6g7hfb2376pyfmkurbo2rwvglv77asbkr@mq2goetrtmpu>
On 12/2/24 4:38 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just had to take a quick look at kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c and
> realized that you're doing:
>
>
> fd = *(int *)key;
> pid = pidfd_get_pid(fd, &f_flags);
>
> // something something
>
> task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>
> bpf_task_storage_lock();
> // something something
> bpf_task_storage_unlock();
> put_pid(pid);
>
> That reference count bump on struct pid seems unnecessary and I suspect
> your lookup routines are supposed to be fast. So why don't you just
> open-code this. Something like:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> index bf7fa15fdcc6..dc36a33c7b6d 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_task_storage.c
> @@ -92,10 +92,12 @@ static void *bpf_pid_task_storage_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> struct task_struct *task;
> unsigned int f_flags;
> struct pid *pid;
> - int fd, err;
>
> - fd = *(int *)key;
> - pid = pidfd_get_pid(fd, &f_flags);
> + CLASS(fd, f)(*(int *)key);
> + if (fd_empty(f))
> + return -EBADF;
> +
> + pid = pidfd_pid(f);
> if (IS_ERR(pid))
> return ERR_CAST(pid);
>
> @@ -104,19 +106,13 @@ static void *bpf_pid_task_storage_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> - if (!task) {
> - err = -ENOENT;
> - goto out;
> - }
> + if (!task)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>
> bpf_task_storage_lock();
> sdata = task_storage_lookup(task, map, true);
> bpf_task_storage_unlock();
> - put_pid(pid);
> return sdata ? sdata->data : NULL;
> -out:
> - put_pid(pid);
> - return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
>
> which avoids the reference count bumps on @pid.
> It remains pinned by the pidfd anyway.
The "bpf_pid_task_storage_lookup_elem()" is used by the syscall path which may
be less looked at. The bpf prog uses another function "__bpf_task_storage_get()"
which directly has a task pointer.
The change makes sense to me. A nice improvement on the syscall path. It will be
great if you can post a patch for it. Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-02 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-02 12:38 bpf_task_storage improvement question Christian Brauner
2024-12-02 19:37 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
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=f956b566-e563-429f-93c0-3dd8f72d01e1@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/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.