On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:20:48AM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: > 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? Sorry I don't seem to have this patch in my mail box. Can you resend it please? Thanks! -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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
