[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- From: Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>
- Cc: Christophe Saout <christophe saout de>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Brian Swetland <swetland google com>, San Mehat <san google com>, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:02:14 +0100
On 11/03/2010 01:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Async crypto is not solved at all by your patch.
>
> You mean async crypto with 10 stacked devices? Find me a single
> user who does that.
It is just quick reproducer. It can happen with several
non-stacked devices too and just points to the
problem that there was reason for dedicated threads per device.
I would really prefer If we can fix the scalable problem without
dismantling existing stacking support.
There are users who plans to massively use many dm-crypt devices
in system and this will ensure that it will work properly
even in bizarre configurations.
> Traditionally stacking didn't work very
> well in the kernel due to the limited kernel stack overflows.
> I don't think that's significantly different here.
Sorry? device-mapper is designed to be stackable. And it works.
> Anyways stacking could be probably fixed, but it's also that 99.999999%
> of all dm-crypt users don't stack or use async but simply need a
> scalable dm-crypt. Extreme stacking is extremly low on the
> priority list.
>
> Right now dm-crypt seems to have other problems anyways that need
> to be addressed first.
I fixed many bugs in dm-crypt which were caused by reducing problem
to "common situation" (and which appeared later).
Please can you fix you patch instead of this argumentation?
I know that some fix is needed, I am using the patch myself and I am also
receiving mails requesting it.
The whole thread was reopened because we tried to find solution
to this - IOW fix your patch.
Milan
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]