BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: "Kuniyuki Iwashima" <kuniyu@google.com>
Cc: "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	"Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
	"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"Stanislav Fomichev" <sdf@fomichev.me>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Neal Cardwell" <ncardwell@google.com>,
	"Willem de Bruijn" <willemb@google.com>,
	"Tenzin Ukyab" <ukyab@berkeley.edu>,
	"Clément Léger" <cleger@meta.com>,
	"Kuniyuki Iwashima" <kuni1840@gmail.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ameryhung@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/8] bpf: tcp: Introduce bpf_tcp_ops.{enqueue,dequeue}_rcvq().
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:41:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DLO0KBIOE5JY.3DY4JTZOWT5IU@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAVpQUBGSahLGEqGQCD2_0Ro2e-=59W7mhVyxOnoFU==LAK9tw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 05:39 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com> wrote:
>> can we drop the flag ?
>> hdr_opt_len() is called for every tx skb without per-socket opt-in.
>
> Oh, I assumed bpf_tcp_ops keeps the same behaviour.

bpf_tcp_ops were moved out of BPF_SOCK_OPS_TEST_FLAG() guards on
purpose. None of the existing members has per-socket opt-in.
hdr_opt_len() runs for every tx skb, rtt() for every rtt sample.
See the log of commit 3bb54768fe3e
("bpf: tcp: Support parse/len/write header option hooks in bpf_tcp_ops"):
"A per-member/per-cgroup gate could be added later if the extra
fast-path work proves measurable."

> We have a bpf prog to turn the hook on (from cgroup_skb/ingress),
> only when ingress rate exceeds the allocated capacity, to signal that
> via a custom TCP option and turn the hook off from the hook itself.
> (and I planned to post another patch for that)

That should work today without another patch and without the flag.
cgroup_skb/ingress prog does
  bpf_sk_storage_get(&map, sk, 0, BPF_SK_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
when the rate is exceeded. hdr_opt_len() and write_hdr_opt() do
  bpf_sk_storage_get(&map, sk, 0, 0);
and return when it's NULL. write_hdr_opt() calls
bpf_sk_storage_delete() after the option went out.
cg_skb_func_proto() has both helpers and get_func_proto() in
bpf_tcp_ops.c allows them in every member.
egress_read_sock_fields() in test_sock_fields.c does the cgroup_skb
part.

> Anyway, is it because calling bpf prog is not very expensive
> or per-prog switch is preferable to per-socket flag ?

The switch is still per socket. It's sk_storage instead of a bit in
tcp_sock, so every prog has its own.

While such new flag is per socket, but it's one for all progs.

And you want to take the last bit of u8 bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags...

As far as the cost. A socket that didn't opt in pays for an indirect
call into the prog and for bpf_sk_storage_get() that finds nothing,
but only in cgroups where bpf_tcp_ops with enqueue_rcvq is attached.
The members that are not set are NULL and bpf_tcp_ops_call() skips
them. That's what hdr_opt_len() costs on tx.

I don't remember what Amery measured, but worth benchmarking
for your case.

>> The prog in patch 8 already returns when the socket has no
>> sk_storage.
>
> Yes, but this is only for bpf verifier.

tcp_init_autolowat_cb() can be the only place that passes
BPF_SK_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE.
So for a socket that didn't do setsockopt(BPF_TCP_AUTOLOWAT)
other cbs will return NULL on lookup.

tcp_disable_autolowat() will do:
  bpf_sk_storage_delete(&tcp_autolowat_map, sk);
  bpf_tcp_ops_set_rcvlowat(sk, 1);

> Just an idea, would it make sense to add a kfunc to move bpf_tcp_ops
> callback to a shadow pointer by allocating sizeof(bpf_tcp_ops) * 2 ?

Doesn't look right to me.

Amery,
please share your thoughts here.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-25  1:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-23 21:35 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/8] bpf: Add bpf_tcp_ops hooks for TCP AutoLOWAT Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/8] bpf: tcp: Convert deny-list for bpf_{get,set}sockopt() to allow-list Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 22:04   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-23 22:31   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 15:53   ` Stanislav Fomichev
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/8] selftest: bpf: Use BPF_SOCK_OPS_ALL_CB_FLAGS + 1 for bad_cb_test_rv Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 22:11   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/8] bpf: tcp: Introduce bpf_tcp_ops.{enqueue,dequeue}_rcvq() Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 21:50   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-23 22:42   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-25  0:04   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-25  0:39     ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-25  1:41       ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2026-09-25 17:33         ` Amery Hung
2026-09-27  0:18           ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-30 19:56             ` Amery Hung
2026-09-30 21:03               ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/8] bpf: tcp: Support bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags_set() for bpf_tcp_ops Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 22:31   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/8] tcp: Split out __tcp_set_rcvlowat() Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-24  3:39   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 6/8] bpf: mptcp: Don't support BPF_SOCK_OPS_RCVQ_CB_FLAG Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-24  3:48   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-24  4:10     ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 7/8] bpf: tcp: Add kfunc to adjust sk->sk_rcvlowat Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-23 22:02   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-23 22:21     ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2026-09-24  0:30   ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-09-23 21:35 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 8/8] selftest: bpf: Add test for bpf_tcp_ops.{enqueue,dequeue}_rcvq() Kuniyuki Iwashima

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=DLO0KBIOE5JY.3DY4JTZOWT5IU@gmail.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cleger@meta.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kuni1840@gmail.com \
    --cc=kuniyu@google.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=ncardwell@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=ukyab@berkeley.edu \
    --cc=willemb@google.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox