From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A704D2EC2 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784819453; cv=none; b=BjAdBvlNM4SS2eOcBDxSBSTJL5DEvT9mhpibDtKR3z91+7DhQZaWq+N1F9O6td8NideDUCnehN6OTdQd4yUHR5Lx/BGcvuvjVzykXDwfpdb7txvIbzJMbgOuOr5WRSYELakw35aTQXXmapUQsRuAAc60O845flgNuynI03Uaqds= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784819453; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j2L5Y2364x9HbZqjg04HaiVqcTFo6/VqwZV4qYu1lsI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tTlwwbqsfBgrLvNobWu3/TgwXj/4ppjkAEz97Kui0BVtTFJQJRM+v72EomKF97HLVKa739H1BNL6nc3DCMoWw17Na0IQsCO5cNAxswiyaqahO85vmE5O98q1G4JXPUKBsXnn27aG4Gl2y68FkBlSqpqrH96as7yBH2QeFHnbcaw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=G09M21SJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="G09M21SJ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1784819437; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7rAIkDElkv6CTIBkt4dAxAAEJYX+7wxVwooCFV3gCDc=; b=G09M21SJ4EF+PY6UhjrflYw9aZJBizT7br4RA/nuIPV0I3AwwjPHNH3AOdMIqqzTueCQ9a w1MkF5uwq+mFCm1synRpt151WBA1TLpEWgZvTgLIiIFYlNpnbHTxNZeSB0z2TvAqXHMWmR gtWabvIZUEOobl0179VyXaZ8mTacpxc= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-622-NhL0uMv6MCmcn0UXjz7Elg-1; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:10:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: NhL0uMv6MCmcn0UXjz7Elg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: NhL0uMv6MCmcn0UXjz7Elg_1784819434 Received: from mx-prod-int-10.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-10.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.95]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4D41956065; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.44.33.21]) by mx-prod-int-10.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61972158B; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fedora (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:10:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:10:29 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Breno Leitao , Christian Brauner , Mateusz Guzik Cc: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) when epoll is actually used Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.6 on 10.30.177.95 OK, sashiko has some concerns https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/amIqmbbZx3NlzUsX%40redhat.com As for READ_ONCE(), I agree, I just forgot to add them. But so far I don't understand the note about io_uring... I'll try to check later. Anyway, I'd like to know your opinion. On 07/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Breno, Christian, Mateusz, > > To be honest, I am not sure this change makes a lot of sense. > But somehow the extra wakeup in anon_pipe_write() looks annoying to me. > > Can you take a look? > > Plus I'd like to know what sashiko.dev thinks. > > I have no idea how to test it wrt performance... > > Oleg. > --- > > fs/pipe.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- > include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h | 6 ++++-- > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)