Re: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?

["Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>]

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/