Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 25 Jan 2022 18:54:23 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] cgroup/bpf: fast path skb BPF filtering | From | Pavel Begunkov <> |
| |
On 1/24/22 18:25, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 7:49 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/16/21 18:24, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:14 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:21:26PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 12/15/21 22:07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: >>>>>>> I'm skeptical I'll be able to measure inlining one function, >>>>>>> variability between boots/runs is usually greater and would hide it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, that's why I suggested to mirror what we do in set/getsockopt >>>>>> instead of the new extra CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED. But I'll leave it up >>>>>> to you, Martin and the rest. >>>> I also suggested to try to stay with one way for fullsock context in v2 >>>> but it is for code readability reason. >>>> >>>> How about calling CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() just next to cgroup_bpf_enabled() >>>> in BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_*SOCKOPT_*() instead ? >>> >>> SG! >>> >>>> It is because both cgroup_bpf_enabled() and CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() >>>> want to check if there is bpf to run before proceeding everything else >>>> and then I don't need to jump to the non-inline function itself to see >>>> if there is other prog array empty check. >>>> >>>> Stan, do you have concern on an extra inlined sock_cgroup_ptr() >>>> when there is bpf prog to run for set/getsockopt()? I think >>>> it should be mostly noise from looking at >>>> __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_*sockopt()? >>> >>> Yeah, my concern is also mostly about readability/consistency. Either >>> __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty everywhere or this new >>> CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED everywhere. I'm slightly leaning towards >>> __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty because I don't believe direct >>> function calls add any visible overhead and macros are ugly :-) But >>> either way is fine as long as it looks consistent. >> >> Martin, Stanislav, do you think it's good to go? Any other concerns? >> It feels it might end with bikeshedding and would be great to finally >> get it done, especially since I find the issue to be pretty simple. > > I'll leave it up to the bpf maintainers/reviewers. Personally, I'd > still prefer a respin with a consistent > __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty or CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED everywhere > (shouldn't be a lot of effort?)
I can make CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() used everywhere, np.
I'll leave out unification with cgroup_bpf_enabled() as don't really understand the fullsock dancing in BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS(). Any idea whether it's needed and/or how to shove it out of inlined checks?
-- Pavel Begunkov
|  |