Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce CGROUP_SUBSYS_RSTAT program type

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:01 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:43:46PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > I assume if we do this optimization, and have separate updated lists
> > for controllers, we will still have a "core" updated list that is not
> > tied to any controller. Is this correct?
>
> Or we can create a dedicated updated list for the bpf progs, or even
> multiple for groups of them and so on.
>
> > If yes, then we can make the interface controller-agnostic (a global
> > list of BPF flushers). If we do the optimization later, we tie BPF
> > stats to the "core" updated list. We can even extend the userland
> > interface then to allow for controller-specific BPF stats if found
> > useful.
>
> We'll need that anyway as cpustats are tied to the cgroup themselves rather
> than the cpu controller.
>
> > If not, and there will only be controller-specific updated lists then,
> > then we might need to maintain a "core" updated list just for the sake
> > of BPF programs, which I don't think would be favorable.
>
> If needed, that's fine actually.
>
> > What do you think? Either-way, I will try to document our discussion
> > outcome in the commit message (and maybe the code), so that
> > if-and-when this optimization is made, we can come back to it.
>
> So, the main focus is keeping the userspace interface as simple as possible
> and solving performance issues on the rstat side. If we need however many
> updated lists to do that, that's all fine. FWIW, the experience up until now
> has been consistent with the assumptions that the current implementation
> makes and I haven't seen real any world cases where the shared updated list
> are problematic.
>

Thanks again for your insights and time!

That's great to hear. I am all in for making the userspace interface
simpler. I will rework this patch series so that the BPF programs just
attach to "rstat" and send a V1.
Any other concerns you have that you think I should address in V1?

> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun