From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754265AbdIGHPj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:15:39 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173]:36294 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753777AbdIGHPi (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:15:38 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4atkoX4SMW+fQe9lph993leJssYTgY6iONXjbNt4vSVWXnyykLStVGQY2zlStML/froRtTUw==
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:15:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
        Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@linux.intel.com>,
        Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@iki.fi>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] x86/crypto: Fix RBP usage in several crypto .S
 files
Message-ID: <20170907071534.ztbxvyfoo7m7esmw@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1504029132.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20170902000919.GA139193@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170902000919.GA139193@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for fixing these!  I don't have time to review these in detail, but I ran
> the crypto self-tests on the affected algorithms, and they all pass.  I also
> benchmarked them before and after; the only noticable performance difference was
> that sha256-avx2 and sha512-avx2 became a few percent slower.  I don't suppose
> there is a way around that?  Otherwise it's probably not a big deal.

Which CPU model did you use for the test?

Thanks,

	Ingo