From: Mathias Krause Subject: Re: [PATCH] padata: make the sequence counter an atomic_t Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:20:48 +0200 Message-ID: <526A29E0.8070204@secunet.com> References: <1380721245-5215-1-git-send-email-mathias.krause@secunet.com> <20131008120824.GN7660@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steffen Klassert , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:35383 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752164Ab3JYIUv (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:20:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131008120824.GN7660@secunet.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08.10.2013 14:08, Steffen Klassert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:40:45PM +0200, Mathias Krause wrote: >> Using a spinlock to atomically increase a counter sounds wrong -- we've >> atomic_t for this! >> >> Also move 'seq_nr' to a different cache line than 'lock' to reduce cache >> line trashing. This has the nice side effect of decreasing the size of >> struct parallel_data from 192 to 128 bytes for a x86-64 build, e.g. >> occupying only two instead of three cache lines. >> >> Those changes results in a 5% performance increase on an IPsec test run >> using pcrypt. >> >> Btw. the seq_lock spinlock was never explicitly initialized -- one more >> reason to get rid of it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mathias Krause > > Acked-by: Steffen Klassert > > Herbert can you take this one? Ping, Herbert? Anything wrong with the patch?