From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-44.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E831036B92D for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 19:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.44 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787081494; cv=none; b=VtTi3KkkWnaGf13qrOZxfLyJKxPAgg4xQwyNv0ftH/V0Mu+kmGBOI6jYROpl4jueUSHHYwuh0HVc+mpQiR6mRsfKwQ1jZVjSDvB7RtWdda0aShTiQ3qnjXHb0lOK0H2gSefM27Ve98K7nW3C1X/Giw3FjdnzmCzX4gGheJ7PBnk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787081494; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KuHVOtgAyVTI30yETpi1bRiv97yNEu22SQQ8ZK98dIo=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=PX/7eb2UBG44KAsZdFZjo8PnZ1H24adXEvyzymB+7/IG1uG+U4gBstLAZvpBaJ1joYQAxDhpyYSLHrFvRZrfvTYnPPiyj/MLH4+YmDvGXLN/X++h09yjc/iIdQ6DFvtSN18zDSFqG1x0LxXRQRuIWqHfImYCQZBV4VxlFC6c+CI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow-tech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow-tech.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow-tech.com header.i=@cknow-tech.com header.b=JGclCxFE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.44 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow-tech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow-tech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow-tech.com header.i=@cknow-tech.com header.b="JGclCxFE" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=KuHVOtgAyVTI30yETpi1bRiv97yNEu22SQQ8ZK98dIo=; c=simple/simple; d=cknow-tech.com; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1787081488; v=1; x=1787686288; b=JGclCxFE7I3H3HH3bc6M2D4nO51BDCeo/9bbvGyocLr4t29kvcs7Z/TDjny8o6Cfkkk3yjUO ZWI9E0UQn/w0L/bIwjxskMpOxAKJYNWExW01bJbZGMjzwfA8jx86H0jgSIGGiXMI0KsI6Kez8F8 yZxfTYCaPqXN0wEQQm6qToCChjgfZC3J/+FWen/oySaBqNZN1rqwuq3bDB4lqOj2Jcc6VNA8MTV +y6oxeVHtHXUF/EIMwuDzw3N25BVKuQuoUvNae0XBtfwAtMrs2lE5g4DyNgoRigs0pNycOGdfv9 1QavuwJlyAEVALKfd45Pc5I+8YLR9h7+7oovUMBGtYvVA== X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: from localhost (92.254.112.55) by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id b14261f1e4059e70; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 19:31:18 +0000 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 21:31:17 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "Dawid Olesinski" , "Herbert Xu" , "David S . Miller" , "Rob Herring" , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , "Conor Dooley" , "Heiko Stuebner" , "Corentin Labbe" , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] crypto: rockchip: Add RK356x/RK3588 cryptographic offloader From: "Diederik de Haas" To: "Eric Biggers" , "Diederik de Haas" X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0-9-ge948bb7230f4 References: <20260708175837.1718437-1-dawidro@gmail.com> <20260818185810.GA7030@quark> In-Reply-To: <20260818185810.GA7030@quark> On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 8:58 PM CEST, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 12:42:03PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote: >> crypto-rk3566-test-no-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/bb5dbfd59f244a6422b965b30f9796ebbfdb1fcb >> crypto-rk3566-test-with-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/ea72297678e19cbbc987de9548f9884382e1d1cc >> crypto-rk3568-test-no-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/309e519e6b1c31f4c1c5bcb1ea16cc8569a54830 >> crypto-rk3568-test-with-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/1e1e938ebbbae75128974fe0a7c240843bce04c8 >> crypto-rk3588-test-no-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/9a2adc2b2e42131445ce4576589e00ecf51ccb4b >> crypto-rk3588-test-with-crypto-module-log.txt: >> https://paste.sr.ht/~diederik/e04c11c8809031ca45662f7d4c227c1ba6162b65 > > Thanks for running some benchmarks! > > Looking at your results for rk3566 for example, SHA-256 on 4096-byte > blocks is 115 cycles/operation for sha256-lib (i.e. ARMv8 CE) or 3027 > cycles/operation for rk2-sha256. So the Rockchip driver is 26 times > slower than simply using the existing well-tested CPU-based code. I shared the results because: 1) I figured it might be useful to have these numbers 2) I didn't know how to interpret the results. Because a lower cycles/operations would IMO *logically* be better and your response above seems to confirm that. Which makes the following results a 'bit' concerning? ``modprobe tcrypt mode=3D404`` [255753.686837] tcrypt: testing speed of async sha256 (sha256-lib) [255753.686841] tcrypt: test 0 ( 16 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 703 cycles/operation, 43 cycles/byte [255753.686848] tcrypt: test 1 ( 64 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 4 updates): 1101 cycles/operation, 17 cycles/byte [255753.686856] tcrypt: test 2 ( 64 byte blocks, 64 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 869 cycles/operation, 13 cycles/byte [255753.686861] tcrypt: test 3 ( 256 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 16 updates): 1676 cycles/operation, 6 cycles/byte [255753.686871] tcrypt: test 4 ( 256 byte blocks, 64 bytes per update, = 4 updates): 1059 cycles/operation, 4 cycles/byte [255753.686877] tcrypt: test 5 ( 256 byte blocks, 256 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 1249 cycles/operation, 4 cycles/byte [255753.686884] tcrypt: test 6 ( 1024 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 64 updates): 4156 cycles/operation, 4 cycles/byte [255753.686904] tcrypt: test 7 ( 1024 byte blocks, 256 bytes per update, = 4 updates): 1054 cycles/operation, 1 cycles/byte [255753.686911] tcrypt: test 8 ( 1024 byte blocks, 1024 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 2826 cycles/operation, 2 cycles/byte [255753.686923] tcrypt: test 9 ( 2048 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 128 updates): 7438 cycles/operation, 3 cycles/byte [255753.686957] tcrypt: test 10 ( 2048 byte blocks, 256 bytes per update, = 8 updates): 1263 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.686966] tcrypt: test 11 ( 2048 byte blocks, 1024 bytes per update, = 2 updates): 940 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.686973] tcrypt: test 12 ( 2048 byte blocks, 2048 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 4887 cycles/operation, 2 cycles/byte [255753.686991] tcrypt: test 13 ( 4096 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 256 updates): 14017 cycles/operation, 3 cycles/byte [255753.687054] tcrypt: test 14 ( 4096 byte blocks, 256 bytes per update, = 16 updates): 1681 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.687065] tcrypt: test 15 ( 4096 byte blocks, 1024 bytes per update, = 4 updates): 1059 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.687074] tcrypt: test 16 ( 4096 byte blocks, 4096 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 9044 cycles/operation, 2 cycles/byte [255753.687105] tcrypt: test 17 ( 8192 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, = 512 updates): 27155 cycles/operation, 3 cycles/byte [255753.687224] tcrypt: test 18 ( 8192 byte blocks, 256 bytes per update, = 32 updates): 2489 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.687241] tcrypt: test 19 ( 8192 byte blocks, 1024 bytes per update, = 8 updates): 1268 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.687253] tcrypt: test 20 ( 8192 byte blocks, 4096 bytes per update, = 2 updates): 959 cycles/operation, 0 cycles/byte [255753.687263] tcrypt: test 21 ( 8192 byte blocks, 8192 bytes per update, = 1 updates): 17812 cycles/operation, 2 cycles/byte This is on my AMD Ryzen 7 5800X which I would've expected to blow a simple RK3566 SBC out of the water ... :-/ > Don't you love "accelerators" that make things 26 times slower? > > I guess we'll get the usual argument that this driver is really just for > "testing" or whatever. Or someone spend a significant time implementing it trying to improve and extend SoC support in good faith, but without your insight.=20 Which is 'coincidentally' the exact reason why I suggested the patch series author to explicitly put you in To or CC. I would not have used "pushing the driver as a checkbox feature" as argumen= t. Especially since, apparently, the numbers show it performs poorly. My 0.02