[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080809174821.GC13158@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:48:21 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...m.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"viro@...IV.linux.org.uk" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"vegard.nossum@...il.com" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:11:21PM -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >
> > As I can't test, can you please test this and Ack.
>
> Someone please test this with tcrypt mode=200 with and without
> the patch.
Yes. I mean both perf and stability tests when I meant by "test".
> If there is a significant degradation I suggest that we back out
> the FPU changes. Making your competitor's processor go slow is
> not a nice thing to do, especially when you've just released a
> processor in the same space.
Please be assured that I would like to close/adddress all the perf and
stability issues and it doesn't matter whose processor it is ;)
--
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