Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/22] Resilient Queued Spin Lock

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 03:54:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 06:00, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch set introduces Resilient Queued Spin Lock (or rqspinlock with
> > res_spin_lock() and res_spin_unlock() APIs).
> 
> So when I see people doing new locking mechanisms, I invariably go "Oh no!".
> 
> But this series seems reasonable to me. I see that PeterZ had a couple
> of minor comments (well, the arm64 one is more fundamental), which
> hopefully means that it seems reasonable to him too. Peter?

I've not had time to fully read the whole thing yet, I only did a quick
once over. I'll try and get around to doing a proper reading eventually,
but I'm chasing a regression atm, and then I need to go review a ton of
code Andrew merged over the xmas/newyears holiday :/

One potential issue is that qspinlock isn't suitable for all
architectures -- and I've yet to figure out widely BPF is planning on
using this. Notably qspinlock is ineffective (as in way over engineered)
for architectures that do not provide hardware level progress guarantees
on competing atomics and qspinlock uses mixed sized atomics, which are
typically under specified, architecturally.

Another issue is the code duplication.

Anyway, I'll get to it eventually...