lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 5/7] perf tools: Support setting different slots in a BPF map separately


On 2015/11/23 10:01, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/11/20 23:34, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 09:25:36PM +0800, Wangnan (F) escreveu:
>>>> + case BPF_MAP_PRIV_KEY_INDICS:
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < priv->key.indics.nr_indics; i++) {
>>>> + u64 _idx = priv->key.indics.indics[i];
>>>> + unsigned int idx = (unsigned int)(_idx);
>>>> +
>>>> + err = (*func)(name, map_fd, &def,
>>>> + priv, &idx, arg);
>>>> + if (err) {
>>>> + pr_debug("ERROR: failed to insert value to
>>>> %s[%u]\n",
>>>> + name, idx);
>>>> + return err;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>> This for-loop has a potential problem that, if perf's user want to
>>> set a very big array using indices, for example:
>>>
>>> # perf record -e
>>> mybpf.c/maps:mymap:values[1,2,3,10-100000,200000-400000]=3/
>>> mybpf.c/maps:mymap:values[100000-200000]=3/ ...
>>>
>>> Perf would alloc nearly 300000 slots for indices array, consume too
>>> much
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> I will fix this problem by reinterprete indices array, makes negative
>>> value represent range start and use next slot to store range size. For
>>> example, the above perf cmdline can be converted to:
>>>
>>> {1,2,3,-10, 99991,-200000,200001} and {-100000,100001}.
>> Why is that changing the way you specify what entries should be set to
>> a value will make it not allocate too much memory?
>
> It is actually a problem in the next patch, in which it expand all range
> into a series of indices. If user wants 1-10000, it creates an array as
> [1,2,3,4,...10000], so user is possible to use a simple cmdline to
> consume
> all of available memory.
>
> However, the method I described above is not the best way to solve
> this probelm.
> I thought yesterday that we should not insist on indices array. We can
> make parser always return ranges. For example, [1,2,3-5] can be represent
> using [(1,1), (2,1), (3,3)], so we don't need the above ugly negative
> indicators.
>
>> I found the first form of representing ( start-end ) to be better than (
>> -start, size ), but I would use what the C language uses for expressing
>> ranges in switch case ranges, which is familiar and doesn't reuses the
>> minus arithmetic operator to express a range, i.e.:
>>
>> # perf record -e \
>> mybpf.c/maps:mymap:values[1,2,3,10..100000,200000..400000]=3/
>>
>> # perf record -e \
>> mybpf.c/maps:mymap:values[100000..200000]=3/ ...
>
> '..' is better.
>

One problem: the case range syntax is introduced by gcc extension, not a
part of standard, and should be '...'.

Please see: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Case-Ranges.html

So I'll use '...' also.

Thank you.



> Thank you.
>
>> - Arnaldo
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-23 07:21    [W:0.064 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site