On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:27 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I would add another consideration: if you can get better latency with
> negligible overhead (0.1%? 0.05%), then that might make sense too. For
> example, it seems plausible that checking need_resched() every few blocks
> adds basically no
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 8:19 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Hey again Thomas,
>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> I'm trying to optimize this for crypto performance while still taking
>> into account preemption concerns. I'm having a bit o
Hey again Thomas,
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:26 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I'm trying to optimize this for crypto performance while still taking
> into account preemption concerns. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring
> out a way to determine numerically what the upper bounds
Hi Thomas,
I'm trying to optimize this for crypto performance while still taking
into account preemption concerns. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring
out a way to determine numerically what the upper bounds for this
stuff looks like. I'm sure I could pick a pretty sane number that's
arguably oka
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:45 PM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > So what you have in mind is something like calling simd_relax() every
> > 4096 bytes or so?
>
> That was actually pretty easy, putting together both of your suggestions:
>
> s
