On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:57:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, June 05, 2014 at 03:11:33 AM, Amos Kong wrote:
> > In crypto/xor.c: calibrate_xor_blocks(), we allocated total 4 pages to
> > do xor speed testing, the BENCH_SIZE is 1 page, and we skipped 2 pages
> > when we set b2.
> >
> > It seems that total 2 pages are enough without skipping 2 pages.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amos Kong <akong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > crypto/xor.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/crypto/xor.c b/crypto/xor.c
> > index 35d6b3a..609dfb5 100644
> > --- a/crypto/xor.c
> > +++ b/crypto/xor.c
> > @@ -114,12 +114,12 @@ calibrate_xor_blocks(void)
> > * test the XOR speed, we don't really want kmemcheck to warn about
> > * reading uninitialized bytes here.
> > */
> > - b1 = (void *) __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK, 2);
> > + b1 = (void *) __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK, 1);
> > if (!b1) {
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "xor: Yikes! No memory available.\n");
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> > - b2 = b1 + 2*PAGE_SIZE + BENCH_SIZE;
> > + b2 = b1 + BENCH_SIZE;
> >
> > /*
> > * If this arch/cpu has a short-circuited selection, don't loop through
> > @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ calibrate_xor_blocks(void)
> > #undef xor_speed
> >
> > out:
> > - free_pages((unsigned long)b1, 2);
> > + free_pages((unsigned long)b1, 1);
> >
> > active_template = fastest;
> > return 0;
>
> I think this does make sense, but I am not 100% sure, sorry.
>
> ...
>
> While looking at this code, can anyone explain to me why we have this stuff in
> crypto/xor.c please ?
>
> 135 #define xor_speed(templ) do_xor_speed((templ), b1, b2)
> 136
> 137 if (fastest) {
> 138 printk(KERN_INFO "xor: automatically using best "
> 139 "checksumming function:\n");
> 140 xor_speed(fastest);
> 141 goto out;
> 142 } else {
> [...]
> 149 }
> 150
> 151 printk(KERN_INFO "xor: using function: %s (%d.%03d MB/sec)\n",
> 152 fastest->name, fastest->speed / 1000, fastest->speed % 1000);
> 153
> 154 #undef xor_speed
>
> Why do we not call do_xor_speed(fastest, b1, b2); right away , but we #define
> xor_speed() instead ? This looks like some remnant or nonsense to me. Shall I
> remove that with a patch ?
You are right.
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut
--
Amos.
--
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
