Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 04:38:01 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     maobibo <maobibo@loongson.cn>
Cc:     Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock
Message-ID: <Y8TUqcSO5VrbYfcM@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230107012324.30698-1-zhanghongchen@loongson.cn>
 <9fcb3f80-cb55-9a72-0e74-03ace2408d21@loongson.cn>
 <4b140bd0-9b7f-50b5-9e3b-16d8afe52a50@loongson.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4b140bd0-9b7f-50b5-9e3b-16d8afe52a50@loongson.cn>
Precedence: bulk

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.