From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH-v3 0/5] random: replace urandom pool with a CRNG Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 16:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20160530205931.GI12629@thunk.org> References: <1464586765-14436-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20160530175322.GB13997@two.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Kernel Developers List , smueller@chronox.de, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, sandyinchina@gmail.com, cryptography@lakedaemon.net, jsd@av8n.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160530175322.GB13997@two.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:53:22AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It should work the same on larger systems, the solution scales > naturally to lots of sockets. It's not clear it'll help enough on systems > with a lot more cores per socket, like a Xeon Phi. But for now it should > be good enough. One change which I'm currently making is to use kmalloc_node() instead of kmalloc() for the per-NUMA node, and I suspect *that* is going to make a quite a lot of different on those systems where the ratio of remote to local memory access times is larger (as I assume it probably would be on really big systems). - Ted