On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 13:20, Puranjay Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Samuel Wu <[email protected]> writes: > > > This patchset adds requisite kfuncs for BPF programs to safely traverse > > wakeup_sources, and puts a config flag around the sysfs interface. > > > > Currently, a traversal of wakeup sources require going through > > /sys/class/wakeup/* or /d/wakeup_sources/*. The repeated syscalls to query > > sysfs is inefficient, as there can be hundreds of wakeup_sources, with each > > wakeup source also having multiple attributes. debugfs is unstable and > > insecure. > > > > Adding kfuncs to lock/unlock wakeup sources allows BPF program to safely > > traverse the wakeup sources list. The head address of wakeup_sources can > > safely be resolved through BPF helper functions or variable attributes. > > > > On a quiescent Pixel 6 traversing 150 wakeup_sources, I am seeing ~34x > > speedup (sampled 75 times in table below). For a device under load, the > > speedup is greater. > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > | | n | AVG (ms) | STD (ms) | > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > | sysfs | 75 | 44.9 | 12.6 | > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > | BPF | 75 | 1.3 | 0.7 | > > +-------+----+----------+----------+ > > > > The initial attempts for BPF traversal of wakeup_sources was with BPF > > iterators [1]. However, BPF already allows for traversing of a simple list > > with bpf_for(), and this current patchset has the added benefit of being > > ~2-3x more performant than BPF iterators. > > I left some inline comments on patch 1, but the high level concern is > that encoding the SRCU index into a fake pointer to get KF_ACQUIRE/ > KF_RELEASE tracking is working against the verifier rather than with it. > Nothing actually prevents a BPF program from walking the list without > the lock, and the whole pointer encoding trick goes away if this is done > as an open-coded iterator instead.
Which is fine, the critical section is only doing CO-RE accesses, and the SRCU lock is just to be able to read things in a valid state while walking the list. It is all best-effort. Open coded iterators was already explored as an option in earlier iterations of the series and discarded as no-go. > > Thanks, > Puranjay
