[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8TUqcSO5VrbYfcM@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 04:38:01 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@...nel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:16:13AM +0800, maobibo wrote:
> Hongchen,
>
> I have a glance with this patch, it simply replaces with
> spinlock_irqsave with mutex lock. There may be performance
> improvement with two processes competing with pipe, however
> for N processes, there will be complex context switches
> and ipi interruptts.
>
> Can you find some cases with more than 2 processes competing
> pipe, rather than only unixbench?
What real applications have pipes with more than 1 writer & 1 reader?
I'm OK with slowing down the weird cases if the common cases go faster.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists