From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@gmail.com>
To: Chase Hiltz <chase@path.net>
Cc: xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bpf_map_update_elem returns -ENOMEM
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 12:19:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2wmo4d00g.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOAiysedBwajcFQwuPrtn5bbdk_5zrNq=oY91j5mWyKdc+06uw@mail.gmail.com> (Chase Hiltz's message of "Mon, 6 May 2024 11:19:29 -0400")
Chase Hiltz <chase@path.net> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing regarding a rather bizarre scenario that I'm hoping
> someone could provide insight on. I have a map defined as follows:
> ```
> struct {
> __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH);
> __uint(max_entries, 1000000);
> __type(key, struct my_map_key);
> __type(value, struct my_map_val);
> __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU);
> __uint(pinning, LIBBPF_PIN_BY_NAME);
> } my_map SEC(".maps");
> ```
> I have several fentry/fexit programs that need to perform updates in
> this map. After a certain number of map entries has been reached,
> calls to bpf_map_update_elem start returning `-ENOMEM`. As one
> example, I'm observing a program deployment where we have 816032
> entries on a 64 CPU machine, and a certain portion of updates are
> failing. I'm puzzled as to why this is occurring given that:
> - The 1M entries should be preallocated upon map creation (since I'm
> not using `BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC`)
> - The host machine has over 120G of unused memory available at any
> given time
I hoped that I might be able to help here, given that I wrote the
documentation for BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH. Unfortunately the details of
LRU eviction are complex, especially when using BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU for
per-cpu LRU lists.
The LRU documentation was updated by Joe Stringer, including a flowchart
which you might find helpful:
https://docs.kernel.org/bpf/map_hash.html
Joe also gave a talk about LRU maps LPC a couple of years ago which
might give some insight:
https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1368/
> I've previously reduced max_entries by 25% under the assumption that
> this would prevent the problem from occurring, but this only caused
> map updates to start failing at a lower threshold. I believe that this
> is a problem with maps using the `BPF_F_NO_COMMON_LRU` flag, my
> reasoning being that when map updates fail, it occurs consistently for
> specific CPUs.
> At this time, all machines experiencing the problem are running kernel
> version 5.15, however I'm not currently able to try out any newer
> kernels to confirm whether or not the same problem occurs there. Any
> ideas on what could be responsible for this would be greatly
> appreciated!
There have been several updates to the LRU map code since 5.15 so it is
definitely possible that it will behave differently on a 6.x kernel.
> Thanks,
> Chase Hiltz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-08 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-06 15:19 bpf_map_update_elem returns -ENOMEM Chase Hiltz
2024-05-08 11:19 ` Donald Hunter [this message]
2024-05-16 11:29 ` Hou Tao
2024-05-17 13:52 ` Chase Hiltz
2024-05-18 4:32 ` Hou Tao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m2wmo4d00g.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=donald.hunter@gmail.com \
--cc=chase@path.net \
--cc=xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).