On 01/03, WangYuli wrote: > > [Adding some of my colleagues who were part of the original submission to > the CC list for their information.] OK, > perhaps we should include a link to the original discussion > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/75B06EE0B67747ED+20241225094202.597305-1-wangyuli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ ... > Reported-by: WangYuli <wangyuli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> WangYuli, this patch has nothing to do with your original patch and the discussion above. > I'm happy to provide more test results for this patch if it's not too late. Would be great, but I don't think this patch can make any difference performance-wise in practice. Short reads are not that common, I guess. > Hmm.. > Initially, the sole purpose of our original patch was to simply check if > there were any waiting processes in the process wait queue to avoid > unnecessary wake-ups, for both reads and writes. Exactly. So once again, this patch is orthogonal to the possible wq_has_sleeper() optimizations. > Do you have any suggestions on how we could better > achieve our original objective? See wakeup_pipe_readers/writers() && pipe_poll() https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250102163320.GA17691@xxxxxxxxxx/ Oleg.
