Re: [PATCH RFC v3 net-next 3/3] samples: bpf: eBPF dropmon example in C

[fche-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org (Frank Ch. Eigler)]

ast wrote earlier:

> [...]
> dtrace/systemtap/ktap approach is to use one script file that should provide
> all desired functionality. That architectural decision overcomplicated their
> implementations.
>
> eBPF follows split model: everything that needs to process millions of events
> per second needs to run in kernel and needs to be short and deterministic,
> all other things like aggregation and nice graphs should run in user space.
> [...]

For the record, this is not entirely accurate as to dtrace.  dtrace
delegates aggregation and most reporting to userspace.  Also,
systemtap is "short and deterministic" even for aggregations & nice
graphs, but since it limits its storage & cpu consumption, its
arrays/reports cannot get super large.


> [...]
> +SEC("events/skb/kfree_skb")
> +int bpf_prog2(struct bpf_context *ctx)
> +{
> +[...]
> +	value = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&my_map, &loc);
> +	if (value)
> +		(*(long *) value) += 1;
> +	else
> +		bpf_map_update_elem(&my_map, &loc, &init_val);
> +	return 0;
> +}

What kind of locking/serialization is provided by the ebpf runtime
over shared variables such as my_map?


- FChE