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: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:56:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250123125607.GA16498@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHHb5qsiTDQ8XO8mjVH6NOQ1T0V5Y-+Ug80mkpLTdiAsCA@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry for delay,
On 01/20, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:31 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I'm afraid my emails can look as if I am trying to deny the problem.
> > No. Just I think we need to understand why exactly this patch makes
> > a difference.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> I was going to state there is 0 urgency as long as the patch does not
> make the merge window, but it just did.
Yes...
> So one would preferably survey a bunch of real workloads, see what
> happens with real pipes with both policies -- the early wake up is
> basically a tradeoff and it very well may be it is worth it in the
> real world.
The problem is that this early wakeup is not intended, the code is
not supposed to do this. So in some sense this patch fixes the
intended/documented "avoid unnecessary wakeups" logic.
Now I can reproduce the hackbench's slowdown on my laptop, but still
don't understand it... I'll try to think more on Weekend, then I'll
discuss the possible revert with Linus who wrote that code and
reviewed this patch.
Thanks for your investigations,
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-23 12:56 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
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 [this message]
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=20250123125607.GA16498@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