linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] per-CPU cryptd thread implementation based on workqueue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:15:58 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] per-CPU cryptd thread implementation based on workqueue

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 11:04 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:32:17AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> >
> > This is the first attempt to use a dedicate workqueue for crypto. It is
> > not intended to be merged. Please feedback your comments, especially on
> > desgin.
> 
> Thanks for the patch!
> 
> > +		spin_lock_init(&cpu_queue->lock);
> 
> Since we're switching to per-cpu queues it would be good to just
> kill the spin lock.  AFAICS the only place you really need it is
> in cryptd_tfm_in_queue.  That's just used for debugging so we can
> just kill it and lose this spin lock.

Yes. Except that, now we do not need a spin lock really. I think the
spin lock may be useful if we enqueue a request on other CPU's queue to
do load balance. And if it is possible that the work_struct to be
executed on CPU other original CPU for CPU hotplug (current code do
not).

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)