From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
kernel test robot <yi1.lai@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [fs/pipe] f7f4665dc5: lmbench3.PIPE.bandwidth.MB/sec 18.5% regression
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 06:59:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <avMxCN0yayzLh2p1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHFe8XgtKZohfn0Q=EH0EeXozTZq+UPJKN0BEmLnEG2s=Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 03:44:36PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 1:46 PM Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 02:44:54PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > > 6) Any other idea?
> > >
> > > The SMAP stuff is the primary problem right now. To reiterate: every
> > > single buffer read/write takes a SMAP trip, which is very expensive
> > > even on modern uarchs. Refactoring this into i/o under one SMAP round
> > > would provide a visible speed up. It also happens to not pose a
> > > tradeoff in terms of memory usage and would be my first avenue of
> > > attack if I was working on this.
> > >
> > > All that said, one reader vs one writer scenario definitely makes
> > > sense to optimize.
> >
> > I've spent some tokens on it, and it seems to give ~5% improvement on
> > the pipe bench. Is this what you had in mind (in a single patch format)?
> >
>
> The resulting behavior matches.
>
> A clean implementation escapes me and that's part of a reason I did
> not do the work myself.
>
> The proposed patch is on the uglier side, but AFAICS that was never a
> blocker in Linux.
Agree, the implementation is not beatiful. Another approach is to open
code and have a single function to do the whole copying, and simplify it
a bit, but, that makes the code even harder to digest.
Let me try to come up with something a bit more digestible and see where
I will end up.
thanks,
--breno
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-05 0:38 [linus:master] [fs/pipe] f7f4665dc5: lmbench3.PIPE.bandwidth.MB/sec 18.5% regression kernel test robot
2026-11-05 15:04 ` Christian Brauner
2026-11-05 15:28 ` Breno Leitao
2026-11-05 15:57 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-11-06 11:11 ` Breno Leitao
2026-11-06 13:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-11-10 12:46 ` Breno Leitao
2026-11-10 14:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-11-10 14:59 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=avMxCN0yayzLh2p1@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=yi1.lai@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.