Re: [RFC PATCH] bpf: Add new bpf map type for timer

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* He Kuang <hekuang@huawei.com> wrote:

> ping and add ast@plumgrid.com, what's your opinion on this?

Firstly, two days isn't nearly enough for a 'review timeout', secondly, have you 
seen the kbuild test reports?

Thirdly, I suspect others will do a deeper review, but even stylistically the 
patch is a bit weird, for example these kinds of unstructured struct initializers 
are annoying:

> >   struct bpf_map_def SEC("maps") timer_map = {
> >   	.type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_TIMER_ARRAY,
> >   	.key_size = sizeof(int),
> >   	.value_size = sizeof(unsigned long long),
> >   	.max_entries = 4,
> >   };

> >  	.map_alloc = fd_array_map_alloc,
> >  	.map_free = fd_array_map_free,
> >  	.map_get_next_key = array_map_get_next_key,
> >-	.map_lookup_elem = fd_array_map_lookup_elem,
> >+	.map_lookup_elem = empty_array_map_lookup_elem,
> >  	.map_update_elem = fd_array_map_update_elem,
> >  	.map_delete_elem = fd_array_map_delete_elem,
> >  	.map_fd_get_ptr = prog_fd_array_get_ptr,
> >@@ -312,7 +318,7 @@ static const struct bpf_map_ops perf_event_array_ops = {
> >  	.map_alloc = fd_array_map_alloc,
> >  	.map_free = perf_event_array_map_free,
> >  	.map_get_next_key = array_map_get_next_key,
> >-	.map_lookup_elem = fd_array_map_lookup_elem,
> >+	.map_lookup_elem = empty_array_map_lookup_elem,
> >  	.map_update_elem = fd_array_map_update_elem,
> >  	.map_delete_elem = fd_array_map_delete_elem,
> >  	.map_fd_get_ptr = perf_event_fd_array_get_ptr,

> >+static const struct bpf_map_ops timer_array_ops = {
> >+	.map_alloc = timer_array_map_alloc,
> >+	.map_free = timer_array_map_free,
> >+	.map_get_next_key = array_map_get_next_key,
> >+	.map_lookup_elem = empty_array_map_lookup_elem,
> >+	.map_update_elem = timer_array_map_update_elem,
> >+	.map_delete_elem = timer_array_map_delete_elem,
> >+};
> >+
> >+static struct bpf_map_type_list timer_array_type __read_mostly = {
> >+	.ops = &timer_array_ops,
> >+	.type = BPF_MAP_TYPE_TIMER_ARRAY,
> >+};

Please align initializations vertically, so the second column becomes readable, 
patterns in them become easy to see and individual entries become easier to 
compare.

See for example kernel/sched/core.c:

struct cgroup_subsys cpu_cgrp_subsys = {
        .css_alloc      = cpu_cgroup_css_alloc,
        .css_free       = cpu_cgroup_css_free,
        .css_online     = cpu_cgroup_css_online,
        .css_offline    = cpu_cgroup_css_offline,
        .fork           = cpu_cgroup_fork,
        .can_attach     = cpu_cgroup_can_attach,
        .attach         = cpu_cgroup_attach,
        .exit           = cpu_cgroup_exit,
        .legacy_cftypes = cpu_files,
        .early_init     = 1,
};

That's a _lot_ more readable than:

struct cgroup_subsys cpu_cgrp_subsys = {
        .css_alloc = cpu_cgroup_css_alloc,
        .css_free = cpu_cgroup_css_free,
        .css_online = cpu_cgroup_css_online,
        .css_offline = cpu_cgroup_css_offline,
        .fork = cpu_cgroup_fork,
        .can_attach = cpu_cgroup_attach,
        .attach = cpu_cgroup_attach,
        .exit = cpu_cgroup_exit,
        .legacy_cftypes = cpu_files,
        .early_init = 1,
};

right? For example I've hidden a small initialization bug into the second variant, 
how much time does it take for you to notice it?

Thanks,

	Ingo