[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180912061433.GA8484@ip-172-31-15-78>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 06:14:33 +0000
From: Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/17] asm: simd context helper API
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:08:21PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Sometimes it's useful to amortize calls to XSAVE/XRSTOR and the related
> FPU/SIMD functions over a number of calls, because FPU restoration is
> quite expensive. This adds a simple header for carrying out this pattern:
>
> simd_context_t simd_context = simd_get();
> while ((item = get_item_from_queue()) != NULL) {
> encrypt_item(item, simd_context);
> simd_context = simd_relax(simd_context);
> }
> simd_put(simd_context);
>
> The relaxation step ensures that we don't trample over preemption, and
> the get/put API should be a familiar paradigm in the kernel.
Given that it's always supposed to be used like that, mightn't it be
better if simd_relax() took a pointer to the context, so the call is
just
simd_relax(&simd_context);
?
The inlining means that there won't actually be a pointer dereference in
the emitted code.
If simd_put() also took a pointer then it could set the context back to
HAVE_NO_SIMD as well?
- Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists