On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:49 +0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:30:24AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 19:03 +0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > Ah, ok. So only additional cost with "paged Rx" and swcrypto is a > > > memcpy, which is theoretically rather small cost compared with doing > > > tx/rx cryptography in main cpu. > > > > > > So, what about turn on swcrypto by default upstream? > > > > hwcrypto offloads cryptography to the device. It saves host CPU cycles > > so it's a good thing to do. > > Have you did benchmarking ? :-P Yeah, I remembered I did it on 3945 sometime (long) ago. It was about 5% CPU cycles save for CCMP/AES. It should also save the system power. But I forgot the number. > Question is how swcrypto=1 hurts, does we have any valuable data > for that? > > > The bug #519154 doesn't affect most people > > and only for 4965. > Don't like logic in that sentence. If I read the corresponding kernel bugzilla report correctly, this only affect to small portion of people. > > #556990 doesn't look like swcrypto related, need to > > do more investigation. > > User reported swcrypto=1 helps with it on 2.6.32. See my comments in the bug. The issues should be both fixed in upstream. > > So I don't think we should use swcrypto=1 by > > default in upstream. Users are free to do so in their /etc/modprobe.d > > though. > > I think many users don't know about, and just live whit random crashes > from time to time, or switch back to windows :-/ The windows driver also crashes. They just don't tell you about it. Do you want a "feature" like that in Linux? ;-) Thanks, -yi _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
