From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [RFC] DRBG: which shall be default? Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:00:55 +0800 Message-ID: <20160608080055.GA13686@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <1664837.3VbqQRUZed@positron.chronox.de> <1580741.tpUX5Z7OKy@tauon.atsec.com> <20160608024140.GA12283@gondor.apana.org.au> <7330387.0ZS018HYJD@positron.chronox.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Stephan Mueller Return-path: Received: from helcar.hengli.com.au ([209.40.204.226]:33717 "EHLO helcar.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754999AbcFHIA7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:00:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7330387.0ZS018HYJD@positron.chronox.de> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > The performance with ctr-aes-aesni on 64 bit is as follows -- I used my LRNG > implementation for testing for which I already have performance measurements: > > - generating smaller lengths (I tested up to 128 bytes) of random numbers > (which is the vast majority of random numbers to be generated), the > performance is even worse by 10 to 15% > > - generating larger lengths (tested with 4096 bytes) of random numbers, the > performance increases by 3% > > Using ctr(aes-aesni) on 32 bit, the numbers are generally worse by 5 to 10%. ctr(aes-aesni) is not the same thing as ctr-aes-aesni, the former being just another way of doing what you were doing. So did you actually test the real optimised version which is ctr-aes-aesni? Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt