From: Florian Lehner <dev@der-flo.net>
To: David Rheinsberg <david@readahead.eu>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, daniel@zonque.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, lpm: fix check prefixlen before walking trie
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 21:33:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZUf8Ld8pQu46dyTi@der-flo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d237338-6341-45be-9f0e-f1f1a9bdc153@app.fastmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 08:08:43PM +0100, David Rheinsberg wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Florian Lehner wrote:
> > When looking up an element in LPM trie, the condition 'matchlen ==
> > trie->max_prefixlen' will never return true, if key->prefixlen is larger
> > than trie->max_prefixlen. Consequently all elements in the LPM trie will
> > be visited and no element is returned in the end.
> >
>
> Am I understanding you right that this is an optimization to avoid walking the entire trie? Because the way I read your commit-message I assume the output has always been NULL? Or am I missing something.
>
> Do you have a specific use-case where such lookups are common? Can you explain why it is important to optimize this case? Because you now add a condition for every lookup just to optimize for the lookup-miss of a special case. I don't think I understand your reasoning here, but I might be missing some context.
>
> Thanks!
> David
Hi David,
Your understanding is correct. The return value currently and with this patch is
in both cases the same for the case where key->prefixlen > trie->max_prefixlen.
The optimization is to avoid the locking mechanism, walking the trie and
checking its elements. It might not be the most common use case, so I see your
point.
>
> > Fixes: b95a5c4db09b ("bpf: add a longest prefix match trie map implementation")
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <dev@der-flo.net>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > index 17c7e7782a1f..b32be680da6c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> > @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ static void *trie_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map,
> > void *_key)
> > struct lpm_trie_node *node, *found = NULL;
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key *key = _key;
> >
> > + if (key->prefixlen > trie->max_prefixlen)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > /* Start walking the trie from the root node ... */
> >
> > for (node = rcu_dereference_check(trie->root, rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
> > --
> > 2.39.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-05 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-05 8:58 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, lpm: fix check prefixlen before walking trie Florian Lehner
2023-11-05 19:08 ` David Rheinsberg
2023-11-05 20:33 ` Florian Lehner [this message]
2023-11-06 8:00 ` David Rheinsberg
2023-11-06 20:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=ZUf8Ld8pQu46dyTi@der-flo.net \
--to=dev@der-flo.net \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=daniel@zonque.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@readahead.eu \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--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