[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090122073040.GA12395@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:30:40 +1100
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
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, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:15:58PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>
> 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).
Right, but I think load-balancing should be explicitly enabled,
i.e., we probably don't want to do it by default for AES-NI.
The way I see load balancing work is if you had a template that
sat on top of cryptd pass the requests to the cryptd on a CPU
it chooses.
Then we can enable it for any algorithm in the system simply
by instantiating that template for it.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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