From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Emil Tsalapatis" <emil@etsalapatis.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Add buddy per-CPU caches
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2026 18:38:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-205430@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261109182055.7581-6-emil@etsalapatis.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential
issues to consider:
- [Medium] selftests/bpf: conflicting prototype for buddy_alloc_memory()
- [Low] selftests/bpf: buddy_alloc_nogrow() bypasses buddy_cache_alloc()
- [Low] selftests/bpf: missing static on buddy_cache_alloc() and
buddy_cache_free()
--
commit 2da1f713f762ba4737b95c532cd5e6f183f3f061
Author: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>
selftests/bpf: libarena: Add buddy per-CPU caches
This commit adds per-CPU LIFO array caches to the libarena buddy allocator
for the eight smallest allocation orders so small allocations and frees can
avoid taking the central buddy lock.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c
> index 514d0a59eaff5..13c55cf53e524 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c
> @@ -38,18 +41,162 @@
> * and their allocation state. It also includes the freelist
> * heads for the allocation itself.
> */
> +static u8 idx_get_order(struct buddy_chunk __arena *chunk, u64 idx);
> +static int idx_is_allocated(struct buddy_chunk __arena *chunk, u64 idx, bool *allocated);
> +static u64 arena_next_pow2(__u64 n);
> +static u64 size_to_order(size_t size);
> +static void __arena *buddy_alloc_memory(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t size,
> + int order, size_t norder);
> +static int buddy_free_unlocked(struct buddy __arena *buddy, u64 addr);
[Severity: Medium]
Does this forward declaration of buddy_alloc_memory() break the build at
this commit? It omits the fifth parameter (bool grow) from the definition:
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c:
static void __arena *buddy_alloc_memory(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t size,
int order, size_t norder, bool grow)
Although the later commit "selftests/bpf: libarena: Handle NMI reentrancy"
adds bool grow to the prototype, this commit fails to compile with
conflicting types and breaks bisection. Note also that buddy_alloc_memory(),
arena_next_pow2(), size_to_order() and buddy_free_unlocked() are not called
before their definitions in this patch.
[ ... ]
> +void __arena *buddy_cache_alloc(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t order)
> +{
> + struct buddy_cache __arena *cache;
> + void __arena *address = NULL;
> +
> + if (!buddy_order_cached(order))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + cache = buddy_cache_enter(buddy);
> + if (!cache)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + address = buddy_cache_pop(cache, order);
> + buddy_cache_exit(cache);
> +
> + return address;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Retrieve the order of an allocation from the address. Reject addresses
> + * that do not start an allocated block so that the locked path can report
> + * them, instead of caching memory that overlaps a live allocation. Cached
> + * objects stay marked as allocated, so freeing an object that is already
> + * cached is not detected.
> + */
> +static int buddy_cache_get_order(void __arena *addr)
> +{
> + struct buddy_chunk __arena *chunk;
> + bool allocated;
> + u64 idx;
> +
> + if ((u64)addr & (BUDDY_MIN_ALLOC_BYTES - 1))
> + return BUDDY_CHUNK_NUM_ORDERS;
>
> + chunk = (void __arena *)((u64)addr & ~BUDDY_CHUNK_OFFSET_MASK);
> + idx = ((u64)addr & BUDDY_CHUNK_OFFSET_MASK) / BUDDY_MIN_ALLOC_BYTES;
> +
> + if (idx_is_allocated(chunk, idx, &allocated) || !allocated)
> + return BUDDY_CHUNK_NUM_ORDERS;
> +
> + return idx_get_order(chunk, idx);
> +}
> +
> +__always_inline int buddy_cache_free(struct buddy __arena *buddy, void __arena *addr)
[Severity: Low]
Should buddy_cache_alloc() and buddy_cache_free() be marked static like the
other internal cache helpers in buddy.bpf.c? Neither helper is declared in
buddy.h or referenced outside this file, and omitting static prevents
buddy_cache_alloc() from being inlined as a local helper into buddy_alloc().
[ ... ]
> @@ -819,7 +1012,18 @@ static void __arena *buddy_alloc_memory(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t size
> __weak
> void __arena *buddy_alloc(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t size)
> {
> - return buddy_alloc_memory(buddy, size, size_to_order(size), 0, true);
> + void __arena *address;
> + int order;
> +
> + if (!buddy)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + order = size_to_order(size);
> + address = buddy_cache_alloc(buddy, order);
> + if (address)
> + return address;
> +
> + return buddy_alloc_memory(buddy, size, order, 0, true);
> }
>
> __weak
[Severity: Low]
Should buddy_alloc_nogrow() also check buddy_cache_alloc() before falling
back to buddy_alloc_memory()?
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/libarena/src/buddy.bpf.c:
__weak
void __arena *buddy_alloc_nogrow(struct buddy __arena *buddy, size_t size)
{
return buddy_alloc_memory(buddy, size, size_to_order(size), 0, false);
}
When buddy_free() caches a small object, the object stays marked allocated
and off the chunk freelists. Because buddy_alloc_nogrow() calls
buddy_alloc_memory() directly, it always takes the central buddy lock and
can return NULL when the chunk freelists are empty even though free objects
of the requested order are sitting in the local per-CPU cache.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261109182055.7581-1-emil@etsalapatis.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-09 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-09 18:20 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/9] bpf libarena allocator improvements Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Add bulk buddy allocation helpers Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/9] selftests/bpf: Add a parallel buddy allocator benchmark Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Make spinlock trylock match arena_spin_unlock Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:29 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Raise arena spinlock CPU limits Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:32 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Add buddy per-CPU caches Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:38 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Handle NMI reentrancy Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-09 19:05 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-09 19:08 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Refill local caches in batches Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 8/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Add a transfer cache Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 18:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 9/9] selftests/bpf: libarena: Cover buddy cache fast paths Emil Tsalapatis
2026-11-09 19:05 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=sashiko-outbox-205430@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.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.