On 25.10.2013 11:26, Herbert Xu wrote: > 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? I send it to linux-crypto and Steffen only. Will resend it directed to you, now. > > Thanks! -- 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
