Re: [RFC] bpf: change bpf syacall to use u64 temp variables
From: Alexei Starovoitov <hidden>
Date: 2015-10-19 19:08:39
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:10:46PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
This patch change map_lookup_elem() and map_update_elem() function to use u64 temp variable if the key_size or value_size is less than u64, we don't need use kmalloc() for these small variables. Signed-off-by: yalin wang <redacted> --- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index f640e5f..c82d7bf 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr) void __user *uvalue = u64_to_ptr(attr->value); int ufd = attr->map_fd; struct bpf_map *map; - void *key, *value, *ptr; + u64 key_buf, value_buf; + void *key = &key_buf, *value = &value_buf, *ptr; struct fd f; int err;@@ -202,7 +203,8 @@ static int map_lookup_elem(union bpf_attr *attr) return PTR_ERR(map); err = -ENOMEM; - key = kmalloc(map->key_size, GFP_USER); + if (map->key_size > sizeof(u64)) + key = kmalloc(map->key_size, GFP_USER);
I think it's a good optimization for common case. Performance numbers would be good to prove the point. Thanks