linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs

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]

Message-ID: <4C04AB6E.1080305@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:40:46 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
CC:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs

, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Questions:
>
> If you are optimizing it,
>
> 1) why don't you optimize it in such a way that if one CPU submits
> requests, the crypto work is spread among all the CPUs? Currently it
> spreads the work only if different CPUs submit it.

This case is only useful with very slow CPUs and is handled by pcrypt
in theory

(but I haven't tested it)

>
> 2) why not optimize software async crypto daemon (crypt/cryptd.c) instead
> of dm-crypt, so that all kernel subsystems can actually take advantage of
> those multi-CPU optimizations, not just dm-crypt?

Normally most subsystems are multi-CPU already, unless they limit
themselves artitifically like dm-crypt.

For dm-crypt would be wasteful to funnel everything through two single CPU threads just
to spread it out again.  That is why I also used per CPU IO threads too.

-Andi


--
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/