Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
        "Cong Wang ." <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxarm@openeuler.org,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        linux-can@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless qdisc
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpXvVZxBRHF6PBDOYSOSCj08nPyfcY0adKuuTg=cqffV+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1615603667-22568-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
 <1615777818-13969-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
 <20210315115332.1647e92b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAM_iQpXvVZxBRHF6PBDOYSOSCj08nPyfcY0adKuuTg=cqffV+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:35:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87eegddhsj.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:07 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I thought pfifo was supposed to be "lockless" and this change
>> re-introduces a lock between producer and consumer, no?
>
> It has never been truly lockless, it uses two spinlocks in the ring buffer
> implementation, and it introduced a q->seqlock recently, with this patch
> now we have priv->lock, 4 locks in total. So our "lockless" qdisc ends
> up having more locks than others. ;) I don't think we are going to a
> right direction...

Just a thought, have you guys considered adopting the lockless MSPC ring
buffer recently introduced into Wireguard in commit:

8b5553ace83c ("wireguard: queueing: get rid of per-peer ring buffers")

Jason indicated he was willing to work on generalising it into a
reusable library if there was a use case for it. I haven't quite though
through the details of whether this would be such a use case, but
figured I'd at least mention it :)

-Toke