On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:57:30AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 05:45:08PM +0100, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> > I'm running a 4-disk RAID0 on top of 4 independent dm-crypt(aes-xts)
> > devices on a Core2Quad 3GHz. This setup did overcome the single-CPU
> Do you actually use dd for production or is this just a benchmark?
The array is streaming most of the time, i.e. single-process sequential
read or write (read mostly) for large chunks of data.
So, no and yes, but...
> (if yes: newsflash: use a better benchmark)
this makes dd quite a valid benchmark for me in this case.
> It will be better with multiple processes running on different CPUs.
> The new design is really for multiple processes.
Of course it is. What bother me is that I can't get back my old
performance in my case whatever I do.
I don't know what kind of parallelism padata uses, i.e. whether a
padata-based solution would suffer from the same limitations like the
current dm-crypt/kcryptd-parallelism or not.
Wth the current approach:
Would it be possible to make CPU-affinity configurable for *single*
kcryptd instances? Either in the way to nail a specific kcryptd to a
specific CPU or (what would be better for me, I guess) in the way to
completely remove CPU-affinity from a specific kcryptd, like it was
before?
Mario
--
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
-- Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
