From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
WangYuli <wangyuli@uniontech.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [pipe_read] aaec5a95d5: stress-ng.poll.ops_per_sec 11.1% regression
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:42:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250120124209.GB7432@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250120121928.GA7432@redhat.com>
Forgot to mention...
On 01/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 01/20, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >
> > Whatever the long term fate of the patch I think it would be prudent to
> > skip it in this merge window.
>
> Perhaps... I'll try to take another look tomorrow.
>
> Just one note right now.
>
> > First two notes:
> > 1. the change only considers performing a wake up if the current
> > source buf got depleted -- if there is a blocked writer and there is at
> > least one byte in the current buf nothing happens, which is where the
> > difference in results is coming from
>
> Sorry I don't understand. Unless this patch is buggy, pipe_read() must
> always wakeup a blocked writer if the writer can write at least one byte.
>
> The writer can't write to "current" buf = pipe->bufs[tail & mask] if
> pipe_full() is still true.
But I'll recheck this logic once again tomorrow, perhaps I misread
pipe_write() when I made this patch.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-20 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-20 6:57 [linux-next:master] [pipe_read] aaec5a95d5: stress-ng.poll.ops_per_sec 11.1% regression kernel test robot
2025-01-20 11:27 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-20 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-01-20 12:42 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-01-20 14:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-01-20 16:56 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-20 20:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-01-20 21:15 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-23 12:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-01-20 15:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-01-22 8:43 ` Oliver Sang
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=20250120124209.GB7432@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=wangyuli@uniontech.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox