[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7hyw+fTdgAF6uYP@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 11:13:07 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:48:44PM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> Use spinlock in pipe_read/write cost too much time,IMO
> pipe->{head,tail} can be protected by __pipe_{lock,unlock}.
> On the other hand, we can use __pipe_{lock,unlock} to protect
> the pipe->{head,tail} in pipe_resize_ring and
> post_one_notification.
>
> I tested this patch using UnixBench's pipe test case on a x86_64
> machine,and get the following data:
> 1) before this patch
> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 493023.3 396.3
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 396.3
>
> 2) after this patch
> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 507551.4 408.0
> ========
> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 408.0
>
> so we get ~3% speedup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>
> ---
After the above "---" line you should have the changlog descrption.
For instance:
v3:
- fixes bleh blah blah
v2:
- fixes 0-day report by ... etc..
- fixes spelling or whatever
I cannot decipher what you did here differently, not do I want to go
looking and diff'ing. So you are making the life of reviewer harder.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists