From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v5 3/3] net/tls: Remove redundant array allocation.
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:38:46 -0700
Message-ID: <20180727153846.GA25541@davejwatson-mba.local.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180719162613.27184-1-vakul.garg@nxp.com>
 <20180719162613.27184-4-vakul.garg@nxp.com>
 <20180721.192532.520509909556885779.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20180723163509.GA91424@davejwatson-mba.local>
 <DB7PR04MB4252EC95B89517727D6F51478B550@DB7PR04MB4252.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180725210103.GA74476@davejwatson-mba.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <DB7PR04MB42527AC58D2D7F718520F3358B2A0@DB7PR04MB4252.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "borisp@mellanox.com" <borisp@mellanox.com>,
        "aviadye@mellanox.com" <aviadye@mellanox.com>,
        Doron Roberts-Kedes <doronrk@fb.com>
To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@nxp.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:42480 "EHLO
        mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732148AbeG0RB3 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:01:29 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR04MB42527AC58D2D7F718520F3358B2A0@DB7PR04MB4252.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/27/18 09:34 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Watson [mailto:davejwatson@fb.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:31 AM
> > To: Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@nxp.com>
> > Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> > borisp@mellanox.com; aviadye@mellanox.com; Doron Roberts-Kedes
> > <doronrk@fb.com>
> > Subject: Re: [net-next v5 3/3] net/tls: Remove redundant array allocation.
> > 
> > On 07/24/18 08:22 AM, Vakul Garg wrote:
> > > Will it be a bad idea to get rid of array 'sgin' on stack and simply
> > > kmalloc 'sgin' for whatever the number the number of pages returned by
> > iov_iter_npages()?
> > > We can allocate for sgout too with the same kmalloc().
> > >
> > > (Using a local array based 'sgin' is coming in the way to achieve
> > > sending multiple async record decryption requests to the accelerator
> > > without waiting for previous one to complete.)
> > 
> > Yes we could do this, and yes we would need to heap allocate if you want to
> > support multiple outstanding decryption requests.  I think async crypto
> > prevents any sort of zerocopy-fastpath, however.
> 
> We already do a aead_request_alloc (which internally does kmalloc).
> To mitigate the cost of kmalloc/kfree for sg lists and aad, I am allocating a 
> combined memory chunk for all of these and then segmenting it into
> aead_req, aad, sgin, sgout. This way there should be no extra cost for
> memory allocations in non-async.

Makes sense, sounds good to me.