linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3

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:	Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:51:00 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>,
	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-devel] DM-CRYPT: Scale to multiple CPUs v3

> AFAIK Nested dm-crypt is not extreme for some folk who have routine
> configurations using it.  But if in_interrupt is set how does this code
> work for them now compared to how it worked before?

Previously they will all pile up on the single worker thread.

Now in the nested case the nested work is run in their own
context. This should actually scale better because you
get parallelism too, not contention on a single resource.

The only difference to the non nested case is that the wq 
is not used.

-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/