[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160418072434.GA17954@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:24:34 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
dm-devel@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
david.s.gordon@...el.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
smueller@...onox.de, tadeusz.struk@...el.com,
Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>, shli@...nel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Introduce bulk mode for crypto engine framework
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:21:16PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
> I don't think so, the dm-crypt can not send maximal requests at some
> situations. For example, the 'cbc(aes)' cipher, it must be handled
> sector by sector (IV is dependency for each sector), so the dm-crypt
> can not send maximal requests, but must sector by sector in this
> situation.
If you can't merge them as requests, then how is the hardware going
to benefit from batching them? Or are you talking about parallel
processing similar to sha-mb?
Even with batching we should be involving the user because only the
user knows (if anyone does) whether more data will be forthcoming.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists