lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?
On 4/15/07, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
> >
> > ok but do you think it's safe to assume that no others parts of the
> > kernel will request "aes-foo" ? Remember that the main point is to
> > optimize "aes-foo" ?
>
> What they request is up to the administrator.
>

But do you think it's safe to design aes driver that could work only
with one kernel user and to rely on administrator config to verify
this condition ?

BTW, here are figures I got with 2 different versions of the driver
when using tcrypt module. The second being the result with the
optimized driver (no key reloading on each block):

normal version:
test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 67991 cycles (8192 bytes)

optimized version:
test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 51783 cycles (8192 bytes)

So the gain is 16000 cycles which seems to worth the change, isn't it ?

thanks
--
Francis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-16 10:39    [W:0.112 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site