[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXvVZxBRHF6PBDOYSOSCj08nPyfcY0adKuuTg=cqffV+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:48:43 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
"Cong Wang ." <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxarm@...neuler.org,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] net: sched: implement TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS for lockless qdisc
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:07 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.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...
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists