Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:45:15 +0800 | From | "Wangnan (F)" <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |