[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <959900.1607436161@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 14:02:41 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5_crypto.c?
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> I wonder - would it make sense to reserve two arrays of scatterlist structs
> and a mutex per CPU sufficient to map up to 1MiB of pages with each array
> while the krb5 service is in use?
Actually, simply reserving a set per CPU is probably unnecessary. We could,
say, set a minimum and a maximum on the reservations (say 2 -> 2*nr_cpus) and
then allocate new ones when we run out. Then let the memory shrinker clean
them up off an lru list.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists