From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F62C433F5 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 21:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001DE611C9 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 21:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238033AbhIVVkA (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:40:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44420 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238014AbhIVVj7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:39:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 359D7C061574; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id 194so14620644qkj.11; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SyV2g5p70F83n1ov3tdAnjFS5uqWP0e/z7OmVWJ4YF0=; b=YLph8sggXPL2HO8cbP21P7mEISpUU/+t5OMfhTcTkCO77moRFs0NWN03iL93RNBw43 Z4dz2A4SHW0fh2j7YwvQDcal2u8ITQpHJmCykR+kg6+RiOPo4//4ERENWI6tlUNiV+GO vgDVkdtw347M4i4IM4hEiG1/qV3kzni5GKkqc3IfHT9ApgE+6hNo5njdRSVhjCW6tBH4 8KHEjAjVTxNSya2pktlFk05Yxdn7YO/Kk/o3K5whITdekyzN0FbsbcPkbK70SkNoTceE f9Ok8o/yXsECSeInNtLkDh0xkMZ5sclAUYr8oKShcGvXZmAoqgV0OgV+JsOW5GExGDR0 ZHAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SyV2g5p70F83n1ov3tdAnjFS5uqWP0e/z7OmVWJ4YF0=; b=GGkbNMThJotaXSWo+vWQdp9iJ4jWdipSzBncTnBwIlrPa4BIwAyuRGyF1EwsdYxNxf Gcn9FkvNUH5I4qHT2yf02b3jpkOwn2UPgcX4YH8Npsf4Eo/qptJ/81bnH/kWauoO2AqC uCNH/OtjTk6iJZZ7RtD6BVMNhOxLIJ67Tc0ZmFDHCyMHiiJkcvlQ5RkfbWCXb4ss/h6X q8xeXpF/jlJLgULAXnGjnEB9m327IeprdnQiiGKFKs2yinUfOXmSR/Ngy+/F9RE+TO2l PrLT/+ZuTYocWalHqcFu4+EvSF4hgesLeN0p57S0HMAq+cA5LOaHvsSCmwtIw8F/v58I hppg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PhiMY4SW4wqyHRe1MI44GMxzhGR8r0aPCd+XHTR6Do6KvbEt3 QI7UPtnZrnAKmsW/50oAMtNG5Q8nRjDpxPOTduQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxThtwWJQZf+8T0KS8tQIVhRt0ddybxUdQ8e2uttYAC0sPXi/ZoM1kXstfhp/efqz0UU76Wr5wGzfc60hFScYM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:47c4:: with SMTP id u187mr1644370yba.225.1632346708354; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210922070748.21614-1-falakreyaz@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:38:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] libbpf: Use sysconf to simplify libbpf_num_possible_cpus To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Muhammad Falak R Wani , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Networking , bpf , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:22 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 9/22/21 9:07 AM, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote: > > Simplify libbpf_num_possible_cpus by using sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF) > > instead of parsing a file. > > This patch is a part ([0]) of libbpf-1.0 milestone. > > > > [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/383 > > > > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Falak R Wani > > --- > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 17 ++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > index ef5db34bf913..f1c0abe5b58d 100644 > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > @@ -10898,25 +10898,16 @@ int parse_cpu_mask_file(const char *fcpu, bool **mask, int *mask_sz) > > > > int libbpf_num_possible_cpus(void) > > { > > - static const char *fcpu = "/sys/devices/system/cpu/possible"; > > static int cpus; > > - int err, n, i, tmp_cpus; > > - bool *mask; > > + int tmp_cpus; > > > > tmp_cpus = READ_ONCE(cpus); > > if (tmp_cpus > 0) > > return tmp_cpus; > > > > - err = parse_cpu_mask_file(fcpu, &mask, &n); > > - if (err) > > - return libbpf_err(err); > > - > > - tmp_cpus = 0; > > - for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { > > - if (mask[i]) > > - tmp_cpus++; > > - } > > - free(mask); > > + tmp_cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF); > > + if (tmp_cpus < 1) > > + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > > This approach is unfortunately broken, see also commit e00c7b216f34 ("bpf: fix > multiple issues in selftest suite and samples") for more details: Oh, that predates me. Thanks, Daniel! Sorry, Muhammad, seems like current implementation is there for a reason and will have to stay. Thanks a lot for working on this, though. Hopefully you can help with other issues, though. [...] > > Thanks, > Daniel > > > WRITE_ONCE(cpus, tmp_cpus); > > return tmp_cpus; > > >