tested this with your other patch. i applied both patches to the kernel at the
same time, so test results the same as with the other patch (good for softraid
at least).
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:49:35 +1000 David Gwynne <da...@gwynne.id.au> wrote:
> pools lock themselves, we just gotta tell them how hard.
>
> can someone test this with ipsec or softraid crypto? or ok it?
>
> Index: crypto.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/crypto/crypto.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.68
> diff -u -p -r1.68 crypto.c
> --- crypto.c 20 Oct 2014 00:40:33 -0000 1.68
> +++ crypto.c 20 Oct 2014 00:46:44 -0000
> @@ -453,20 +453,16 @@ void
> crypto_freereq(struct cryptop *crp)
> {
> struct cryptodesc *crd;
> - int s;
>
> if (crp == NULL)
> return;
>
> - s = splvm();
> -
> while ((crd = crp->crp_desc) != NULL) {
> crp->crp_desc = crd->crd_next;
> pool_put(&cryptodesc_pool, crd);
> }
>
> pool_put(&cryptop_pool, crp);
> - splx(s);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -477,20 +473,14 @@ crypto_getreq(int num)
> {
> struct cryptodesc *crd;
> struct cryptop *crp;
> - int s;
>
> - s = splvm();
> -
> crp = pool_get(&cryptop_pool, PR_NOWAIT | PR_ZERO);
> - if (crp == NULL) {
> - splx(s);
> + if (crp == NULL)
> return NULL;
> - }
>
> while (num--) {
> crd = pool_get(&cryptodesc_pool, PR_NOWAIT | PR_ZERO);
> if (crd == NULL) {
> - splx(s);
> crypto_freereq(crp);
> return NULL;
> }
> @@ -499,7 +489,6 @@ crypto_getreq(int num)
> crp->crp_desc = crd;
> }
>
> - splx(s);
> return crp;
> }
>
> @@ -510,8 +499,10 @@ crypto_init(void)
>
> pool_init(&cryptop_pool, sizeof(struct cryptop), 0, 0,
> 0, "cryptop", NULL);
> + pool_setipl(&cryptop_pool, IPL_VM);
> pool_init(&cryptodesc_pool, sizeof(struct cryptodesc), 0, 0,
> 0, "cryptodesc", NULL);
> + pool_setipl(&cryptodesc_pool, IPL_VM);
> }
>
> /*
>
