On 08.10.2013 14:08, Steffen Klassert wrote: > 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? Ping, Herbert? Anything wrong with the patch? -- 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
