[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:44:54 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
pedrib@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 06:01:51PM +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:22:57PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > this out quite yet. You have 4 patches yet you say conceptually there
> > are 2 distinct changes.
>
> IOW should we end up with 2 bisectable patches here?
>
> And the potentially-broken/poorly-performing stacked async should be
> explained in comments inline perhaps if we're choosing to ignore this
> apparent regression.
It's not broken AFAIK and it will not perform worse than the original
single thread work queue.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists