[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuJxL1yiPrzS7WzjcZmFcXTnqUZHXE-q_gUERoxaVTBmbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:27:29 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
neilb@...e.com, tj@...nel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
keith.busch@...el.com, bart.vanassche@...disk.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, "Garg, Dinesh" <dineshg@...cinc.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce the request handling for dm-crypt
On 12 November 2015 at 23:02, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:57:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 November 2015 20:51:10 Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>> > But it maybe not enough for HW engine which can handle maybe 10M/20M
>> > at one time.
>
>> Given that you have already done measurements, can you find out how much
>> you lose in overall performance with your existing patch if you artificially
>> limit the maximum size to sizes like 256kb, 1MB, 4MB, ...?
>
> It's probably also worth looking at the impact on CPU utilisation as
> well as throughput in your benchmarking since the system will often not
> be idle when it's doing a lot of I/O - I know you've done some
> measurements in that area before, including them when looking at block
> sizes might be interesting.
Make sense.
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
--
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