On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:40:45PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: > Using a spinlock to atomically increase a counter sounds wrong -- we've > atomic_t for this! > > Also move 'seq_nr' to a different cache line than 'lock' to reduce cache > line trashing. This has the nice side effect of decreasing the size of > struct parallel_data from 192 to 128 bytes for a x86-64 build, e.g. > occupying only two instead of three cache lines. > > Those changes results in a 5% performance increase on an IPsec test run > using pcrypt. > > Btw. the seq_lock spinlock was never explicitly initialized -- one more > reason to get rid of it. > > Signed-off-by: Mathias Krause <mathias.krause@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx> Herbert can you take this one? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
