Re: [PATCH v3] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock

[Hongchen Zhang]

Hi sedat,


On 2023/1/16 am9:52, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:32 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 4:19 AM Hongchen Zhang
> > <zhanghongchen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > any question about this patch, can it be merged?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > On 2023/1/7 am 9:23, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> > > > Use spinlock in pipe_read/write cost too much time,IMO
> > > > pipe->{head,tail} can be protected by __pipe_{lock,unlock}.
> > > > On the other hand, we can use __pipe_{lock,unlock} to protect
> > > > the pipe->{head,tail} in pipe_resize_ring and
> > > > post_one_notification.
> > > >
> > > > Reminded by Matthew, I tested this patch using UnixBench's pipe
> > > > test case on a x86_64 machine,and get the following data:
> > > > 1) before this patch
> > > > System Benchmarks Partial Index  BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
> > > > Pipe Throughput                   12440.0     493023.3    396.3
> > > >                                                           ========
> > > > System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)              396.3
> > > >
> > > > 2) after this patch
> > > > System Benchmarks Partial Index  BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
> > > > Pipe Throughput                   12440.0     507551.4    408.0
> > > >                                                           ========
> > > > System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only)              408.0
> > > >
> > > > so we get ~3% speedup.
> > > >
> > > > Reminded by Andrew, I tested this patch with the test code in
> > > > Linus's 0ddad21d3e99 add get following result:
> >
> > Happy new 2023 Hongchen Zhang,
> >
> > Thanks for the update and sorry for the late response.
> >
> > Should be "...s/add/and get following result:"
> >
> > I cannot say much about the patch itself or tested it in my build-environment.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > -Sedat-
>
> I have applied v3 on top of Linux v6.2-rc4.
>
> Used pipebench for a quick testing.
>
> # fdisk -l /dev/sdb
> Disk /dev/sdb: 14,91 GiB, 16013942784 bytes, 31277232 sectors
> Disk model: SanDisk iSSD P4
> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> Disklabel type: dos
> Disk identifier: 0x74f02dea
>
> Device     Boot Start      End  Sectors  Size Id Type
> /dev/sdb1        2048 31277231 31275184 14,9G 83 Linux
>
> # cat /dev/sdb | pipebench > /dev/null
> Summary:
> Piped   14.91 GB in 00h01m34.20s:  162.12 MB/second
>
> Not tested/benchmarked with the kernel w/o your patch.
>
> -Sedat-
OK, If there is any problem, let's continue to discuss it
and hope it can be merged into the main line.

Best Regards,
Hongchen Zhang