Changing default module options
Zhu Yi
yi.zhu at intel.com
Fri Mar 26 04:07:59 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:49 +0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:30:24AM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 19:03 +0800, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > Ah, ok. So only additional cost with "paged Rx" and swcrypto is a
> > > memcpy, which is theoretically rather small cost compared with doing
> > > tx/rx cryptography in main cpu.
> > >
> > > So, what about turn on swcrypto by default upstream?
> >
> > hwcrypto offloads cryptography to the device. It saves host CPU cycles
> > so it's a good thing to do.
>
> Have you did benchmarking ? :-P
Yeah, I remembered I did it on 3945 sometime (long) ago. It was about 5%
CPU cycles save for CCMP/AES. It should also save the system power. But
I forgot the number.
> Question is how swcrypto=1 hurts, does we have any valuable data
> for that?
>
> > The bug #519154 doesn't affect most people
> > and only for 4965.
> Don't like logic in that sentence.
If I read the corresponding kernel bugzilla report correctly, this only
affect to small portion of people.
> > #556990 doesn't look like swcrypto related, need to
> > do more investigation.
>
> User reported swcrypto=1 helps with it on 2.6.32.
See my comments in the bug. The issues should be both fixed in upstream.
> > So I don't think we should use swcrypto=1 by
> > default in upstream. Users are free to do so in their /etc/modprobe.d
> > though.
>
> I think many users don't know about, and just live whit random crashes
> from time to time, or switch back to windows :-/
The windows driver also crashes. They just don't tell you about it. Do
you want a "feature" like that in Linux? ;-)
Thanks,
-yi
More information about the kernel
mailing list