From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965158AbXDPIhG (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:37:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965104AbXDPIhF (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:37:05 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]:44302 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965158AbXDPIhD (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:37:03 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eHC5WwQf8gLMR3yHeCRiaD5+7QrO0ap+ohLcRPTE0wtkXJW9wRDnixH1JMOuDz5GpD4Mz3SYjkWcNMH+ZAFdM7A9tF1Ovks/jc8Ql47rdB9pFFEuz1pXi96/+qJ08i19F8ufXuDMog6q2Dy9n8PuhGT/ln7fNjSss7BGA1JjEdc= Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0704160137g1ef0713fl943c51ed9049212b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:37:01 +0200 From: "Francis Moreau" To: "Herbert Xu" Subject: Re: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ? Cc: helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070415075201.GA1644@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38b2ab8a0704140615y2ba8145bmd3c2316a41d99265@mail.gmail.com> <38b2ab8a0704141410q65f55381w26527aeb10fb4988@mail.gmail.com> <20070415075201.GA1644@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/15/07, Herbert Xu 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