On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:30:54AM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
I did some more tests post commit today using the aesni kld taken
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure.
I did some more tests since someone said they
Not sure if this is the kind of testing you were looking for; but I've
run both mprime and boinc/setiathome for the last two days without any
problem...
It's not a notebook so I can't test suspend/resume..
On 10-11-15 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Hello,
this is a call for testers of the
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:46:23PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/16/2010 5:19 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Would your conclusion be that the patch seems to increase the throughput
of the aesni(4) ?
I think that on small-sized blocks, when using aesni(4), the dominating
factor is the
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure.
diff --git a/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too.
f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock
engine does not use padlock(4), I do not
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
Hi,
One small failure on the patch
The text leading up to this was:
--
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
Hi,
One small failure on the patch
The text leading up to
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:08:30PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/16/2010 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:42:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
On 11/16/2010 5:19 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Would your conclusion be that the patch seems to increase the throughput
of the aesni(4) ?
I think that on small-sized blocks, when using aesni(4), the dominating
factor is the copying/copyout of the data to/from the kernel address
space. Still
Hello,
this is a call for testers of the merge of fpu_kern_enter/leave(9)
to RELENG_8. The changes are required to fix some issues with VIA
padlock engine, and to actually merge aesni(4) to RELENG_8.
I ask to look at the possible FPU context handling regressions.
Reports from the users of VIA
On 11/15/2010 4:13 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Patch is at
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_8_fpu.1.patch
Hi,
One small failure on the patch
The text leading up to this was:
--
|Index: pc98/include/npx.h
13 matches
Mail list logo
