On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:36:12PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> See how ugly this stuff gets once you start letting some people call
> this stuff with locks and some not?
But we already do that anyway. For example, IPsec calls the crypto
functions with a spin lock on the xfrm_state. As it is, you're
allowed to call crypto functions while holding spin locks if and
only if you're in softirq context.
Incidentally, that is something I intend on changing. There is no
reason why we can't do away with that spin lock on the fast path
for IPsec.
> Crypto operations, especially the software operations, are extremely
> expensive compute bound tasks. It is very desirable, as a result, for
> them to be allowed to relinquish the cpu from time to time.
Agreed.
> That being said, I guess a flag isn't so bad.
The other thing we could do with a flag is to use it to set GFP
flags for memory allocation.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]