From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01574C433E9 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C3364EDB for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:04:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229885AbhBZUEo (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:04:44 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38572 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229545AbhBZUEg (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:04:36 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51FA8C061574; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u4so11974911ljh.6; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zx4wWUTPjkEoZMfdFukEwwHYmqNG3sfw0pU4Ec9E4uA=; b=Snr+kyjMGdVKvorvrl0RwG7Nhs3MxTXrcura/wtnx1BwuxyXMo5IK1koqPR7pSOwCk 5pP70wsFngb2ETVZdl4VV+yzc5DdeGM9MehmDwiz3Pd5JcUnpbhkEZ948vHA51sLWIJ0 QIg1Pen6Y56W2bjImPYNhDC5cQtoq6aKWrD/AzO9b5aoGXMO3u7xO0TCr54qTao1oIcV RAzdWDuS6X92B/P3ao2Lbc1FbuCRU5KQRsvqg8Ja8G3QnpXZ3mjoAoPGo8jp18V9gfwr PWTSoqBQpgZDLBOIwnW9DaSkC9H1NJJEk6z2ijtCunw264kG+UKTW2CLHor1aXHdi0Ru oxrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zx4wWUTPjkEoZMfdFukEwwHYmqNG3sfw0pU4Ec9E4uA=; b=pR7Kp8V7pPv4NAFyN68Fd9xWScx7mObyXUp1EF1MwBfDhuiL/VhE6wU0XM3KJ3X2HH n2AiT0QpOPVuSh6YVJ90glBBSpdn59RDF9NbYfftjEi+2VnnsMYFCUvlJI7xEcuRBrdO oSpJghzlgT/pMVlHW7DeRZ8aKDI0uhxYOxCrs8UbSyBp4sAodneQvmFzPKaSahxQNCVf xwUCVvAD+faOGZHpci0FLKmdGNALWsyogB0oqFjSu8e5cI3h4V7HES6zITDeP3Jsotbp Hd84vaE4Z9z8XY7+5oX+PrO8n5cJ3tlX9IS14wn/F3H4HyI/k2AdWDeozrvfIFpacNyO pO/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530pNNX2Mv/TOUpTKGisCiok/kDJz+IaAnPb5xGtvQOSbauF44/z KxReKb/HA3V8uycS242qW3kPEeBcai0TNc3acAjyIoGU X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTMTg2ATqmr33jGu88YKPjfTzN5Dz5HF5o6G0ONsYfB4ZNpVAgifgx1ZOqc/qfL1bg1FZX0ugdTqMAdG3nNDA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:964e:: with SMTP id z14mr2629715ljh.204.1614369834704; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210225234319.336131-1-songliubraving@fb.com> <20210226000344.a6aud7aaimrc6wzt@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20210226000344.a6aud7aaimrc6wzt@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:43 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/6] bpf: enable task local storage for tracing programs To: Martin KaFai Lau Cc: Song Liu , bpf , Network Development , LKML , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Kernel Team , Peter Zijlstra Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:04 PM Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:43:13PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > This set enables task local storage for non-BPF_LSM programs. > > > > It is common for tracing BPF program to access per-task data. Currently, > > these data are stored in hash tables with pid as the key. In > > bcc/libbpftools [1], 9 out of 23 tools use such hash tables. However, > > hash table is not ideal for many use case. Task local storage provides > > better usability and performance for BPF programs. Please refer to 6/6 for > > some performance comparison of task local storage vs. hash table. > Thanks for the patches. > > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau Applied. Thanks. 9 out of 23 libbpf-tools will significantly reduce the tracing overhead. Hooray!