[v5,bpf-next,1/4] bpf: Add bpf_iter_cpumask kfuncs

Commit Message

Yafang Shao Jan. 31, 2024, 2:54 p.m. UTC

Add three new kfuncs for bpf_iter_cpumask.
- bpf_iter_cpumask_new
  KF_RCU is defined because the cpumask must be a RCU trusted pointer
  such as task->cpus_ptr.
- bpf_iter_cpumask_next
- bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy

These new kfuncs facilitate the iteration of percpu data, such as
runqueues, psi_cgroup_cpu, and more.

Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <[e-mail]>
---
 kernel/bpf/cpumask.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Feb. 2, 2024, 10:02 p.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:55 AM Yafang Shao <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Add three new kfuncs for bpf_iter_cpumask.
> - bpf_iter_cpumask_new
>   KF_RCU is defined because the cpumask must be a RCU trusted pointer
>   such as task->cpus_ptr.
> - bpf_iter_cpumask_next
> - bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy
>
> These new kfuncs facilitate the iteration of percpu data, such as
> runqueues, psi_cgroup_cpu, and more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <[e-mail]>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/cpumask.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 82 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> index 2e73533a3811..c6019368d6b1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> @@ -422,6 +422,85 @@ __bpf_kfunc u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
>         return cpumask_weight(cpumask);
>  }
>
> +struct bpf_iter_cpumask {
> +       __u64 __opaque[2];
> +} __aligned(8);
> +
> +struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern {
> +       struct cpumask *mask;
> +       int cpu;
> +} __aligned(8);
> +
> +/**
> + * bpf_iter_cpumask_new() - Create a new bpf_iter_cpumask for a specified cpumask

I'd say "Initialize a new CPU mask iterator for a given CPU mask"?
"new bpf_iter_cpumask" is both confusing and misleading (we don't
create it, we fill provided struct)

> + * @it: The new bpf_iter_cpumask to be created.
> + * @mask: The cpumask to be iterated over.
> + *
> + * This function initializes a new bpf_iter_cpumask structure for iterating over
> + * the specified CPU mask. It assigns the provided cpumask to the newly created
> + * bpf_iter_cpumask @it for subsequent iteration operations.

The description lgtm.

> + *
> + * On success, 0 is returen. On failure, ERR is returned.

typo: returned

> + */
> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_cpumask_new(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it, const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> +
> +       BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) > sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> +       BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) !=
> +                    __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> +
> +       kit->mask = bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_ma, cpumask_size());
> +       if (!kit->mask)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       cpumask_copy(kit->mask, mask);
> +       kit->cpu = -1;
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * bpf_iter_cpumask_next() - Get the next CPU in a bpf_iter_cpumask
> + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask
> + *
> + * This function retrieves a pointer to the number of the next CPU within the

"function returns a pointer to a number representing the ID of the
next CPU in CPU mask" ?

> + * specified bpf_iter_cpumask. It allows sequential access to CPUs within the
> + * cpumask. If there are no further CPUs available, it returns NULL.
> + *
> + * Returns a pointer to the number of the next CPU in the cpumask or NULL if no
> + * further CPUs.

this and last sentence before this basically repeat the same twice,
let's keep just one?


> + */
> +__bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_cpumask_next(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> +       const struct cpumask *mask = kit->mask;
> +       int cpu;
> +
> +       if (!mask)
> +               return NULL;
> +       cpu = cpumask_next(kit->cpu, mask);
> +       if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> +               return NULL;
> +
> +       kit->cpu = cpu;
> +       return &kit->cpu;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy() - Destroy a bpf_iter_cpumask
> + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask to be destroyed.
> + *
> + * Destroy the resource assiciated with the bpf_iter_cpumask.

typo: associated

> + */
> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> +
> +       if (!kit->mask)
> +               return;
> +       bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->mask);
> +}
> +
>  __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
>
>  BTF_SET8_START(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
> @@ -450,6 +529,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_copy, KF_RCU)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_distribute, KF_RCU)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute, KF_RCU)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_weight, KF_RCU)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_RCU)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
>  BTF_SET8_END(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)

Seems like you'll have to rebase, there is a merge conflict with
recently landed changes.


>
>  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set cpumask_kfunc_set = {
> --
> 2.39.1
>

Yafang Shao Feb. 4, 2024, 3:31 a.m. UTC | #2

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:55 AM Yafang Shao <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Add three new kfuncs for bpf_iter_cpumask.
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_new
> >   KF_RCU is defined because the cpumask must be a RCU trusted pointer
> >   such as task->cpus_ptr.
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_next
> > - bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy
> >
> > These new kfuncs facilitate the iteration of percpu data, such as
> > runqueues, psi_cgroup_cpu, and more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/cpumask.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 82 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > index 2e73533a3811..c6019368d6b1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
> > @@ -422,6 +422,85 @@ __bpf_kfunc u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
> >         return cpumask_weight(cpumask);
> >  }
> >
> > +struct bpf_iter_cpumask {
> > +       __u64 __opaque[2];
> > +} __aligned(8);
> > +
> > +struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern {
> > +       struct cpumask *mask;
> > +       int cpu;
> > +} __aligned(8);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_new() - Create a new bpf_iter_cpumask for a specified cpumask
>
> I'd say "Initialize a new CPU mask iterator for a given CPU mask"?
> "new bpf_iter_cpumask" is both confusing and misleading (we don't
> create it, we fill provided struct)

will change it.

>
> > + * @it: The new bpf_iter_cpumask to be created.
> > + * @mask: The cpumask to be iterated over.
> > + *
> > + * This function initializes a new bpf_iter_cpumask structure for iterating over
> > + * the specified CPU mask. It assigns the provided cpumask to the newly created
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask @it for subsequent iteration operations.
>
> The description lgtm.
>
> > + *
> > + * On success, 0 is returen. On failure, ERR is returned.
>
> typo: returned

will fix it.

>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_cpumask_new(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) > sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) !=
> > +                    __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
> > +
> > +       kit->mask = bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_ma, cpumask_size());
> > +       if (!kit->mask)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +       cpumask_copy(kit->mask, mask);
> > +       kit->cpu = -1;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_next() - Get the next CPU in a bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + *
> > + * This function retrieves a pointer to the number of the next CPU within the
>
> "function returns a pointer to a number representing the ID of the
> next CPU in CPU mask" ?

will change it.

>
> > + * specified bpf_iter_cpumask. It allows sequential access to CPUs within the
> > + * cpumask. If there are no further CPUs available, it returns NULL.
> > + *
> > + * Returns a pointer to the number of the next CPU in the cpumask or NULL if no
> > + * further CPUs.
>
> this and last sentence before this basically repeat the same twice,
> let's keep just one?

will change it.

>
>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_cpumask_next(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +       const struct cpumask *mask = kit->mask;
> > +       int cpu;
> > +
> > +       if (!mask)
> > +               return NULL;
> > +       cpu = cpumask_next(kit->cpu, mask);
> > +       if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > +               return NULL;
> > +
> > +       kit->cpu = cpu;
> > +       return &kit->cpu;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy() - Destroy a bpf_iter_cpumask
> > + * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask to be destroyed.
> > + *
> > + * Destroy the resource assiciated with the bpf_iter_cpumask.
>
> typo: associated

will fix it.

>
> > + */
> > +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> > +
> > +       if (!kit->mask)
> > +               return;
> > +       bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->mask);
> > +}
> > +
> >  __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> >
> >  BTF_SET8_START(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
> > @@ -450,6 +529,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_copy, KF_RCU)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_distribute, KF_RCU)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute, KF_RCU)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_weight, KF_RCU)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_RCU)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
> > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
> >  BTF_SET8_END(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
>
> Seems like you'll have to rebase, there is a merge conflict with
> recently landed changes.

will do it.

>
>
> >
> >  static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set cpumask_kfunc_set = {
> > --
> > 2.39.1
> >

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
index 2e73533a3811..c6019368d6b1 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumask.c
@@ -422,6 +422,85 @@  __bpf_kfunc u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask)
 	return cpumask_weight(cpumask);
 }
 
+struct bpf_iter_cpumask {
+	__u64 __opaque[2];
+} __aligned(8);
+
+struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern {
+	struct cpumask *mask;
+	int cpu;
+} __aligned(8);
+
+/**
+ * bpf_iter_cpumask_new() - Create a new bpf_iter_cpumask for a specified cpumask
+ * @it: The new bpf_iter_cpumask to be created.
+ * @mask: The cpumask to be iterated over.
+ *
+ * This function initializes a new bpf_iter_cpumask structure for iterating over
+ * the specified CPU mask. It assigns the provided cpumask to the newly created
+ * bpf_iter_cpumask @it for subsequent iteration operations.
+ *
+ * On success, 0 is returen. On failure, ERR is returned.
+ */
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_cpumask_new(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it, const struct cpumask *mask)
+{
+	struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) > sizeof(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern) !=
+		     __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_cpumask));
+
+	kit->mask = bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_ma, cpumask_size());
+	if (!kit->mask)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	cpumask_copy(kit->mask, mask);
+	kit->cpu = -1;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/**
+ * bpf_iter_cpumask_next() - Get the next CPU in a bpf_iter_cpumask
+ * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask
+ *
+ * This function retrieves a pointer to the number of the next CPU within the
+ * specified bpf_iter_cpumask. It allows sequential access to CPUs within the
+ * cpumask. If there are no further CPUs available, it returns NULL.
+ *
+ * Returns a pointer to the number of the next CPU in the cpumask or NULL if no
+ * further CPUs.
+ */
+__bpf_kfunc int *bpf_iter_cpumask_next(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
+{
+	struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
+	const struct cpumask *mask = kit->mask;
+	int cpu;
+
+	if (!mask)
+		return NULL;
+	cpu = cpumask_next(kit->cpu, mask);
+	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+		return NULL;
+
+	kit->cpu = cpu;
+	return &kit->cpu;
+}
+
+/**
+ * bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy() - Destroy a bpf_iter_cpumask
+ * @it: The bpf_iter_cpumask to be destroyed.
+ *
+ * Destroy the resource assiciated with the bpf_iter_cpumask.
+ */
+__bpf_kfunc void bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy(struct bpf_iter_cpumask *it)
+{
+	struct bpf_iter_cpumask_kern *kit = (void *)it;
+
+	if (!kit->mask)
+		return;
+	bpf_mem_free(&bpf_global_ma, kit->mask);
+}
+
 __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
 
 BTF_SET8_START(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
@@ -450,6 +529,9 @@  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_copy, KF_RCU)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_distribute, KF_RCU)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute, KF_RCU)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_cpumask_weight, KF_RCU)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_new, KF_ITER_NEW | KF_RCU)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_next, KF_ITER_NEXT | KF_RET_NULL)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_iter_cpumask_destroy, KF_ITER_DESTROY)
 BTF_SET8_END(cpumask_kfunc_btf_ids)
 
 static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set cpumask_kfunc_set = {