Re: [PATCH 0/2] bpf: htab: Reduce memory use of hash maps
"T.J. Mercier" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABdmKX39yhgZU9ATzzjmnvCbNqO1i=2KwuroL3YDsgMN+DVp7Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:35 AM Mykyta Yatsenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7/23/26 6:22 PM, T.J. Mercier wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 7:11 AM Mykyta Yatsenko > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 7/22/26 9:37 PM, T.J. Mercier wrote: > >>> Memory is expensive and scarce these days. This series reduces the > >>> memory use of BPF hash maps by eliminating the per-element overheads > >>> below. This saves up to 50% of per-element memory use for standard and > >>> PCPU hash maps. The memory use of LRU hash maps is unaffected. > >>> > >> > >> I understand that these savings calculations do not account for the element > >> value overhead of per-CPU maps, which make up most of the map memory > >> consumption. Realistically we won't see any memory savings for per-CPU maps. > > > > Yes, I did not look at BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY at all. 95% of the > > memory used by all of our BPF maps comes from hashmaps affected by > > these changes. We only have 7 BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY maps and they > > consume only about 12 KiB. (I know a few of those PCPU arrays are just > > to avoid 128 / 256 byte BPF stack allocations.) > > > > > > BTW, did you look into BPF_MAP_TYPE_RHASH? It does not > yield much memory savings compared to normal hashmap, but performance > is better in some scenarios. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ Thanks, I've started to take a look and asked some other coworkers to as well.