From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos Subject: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:17:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4E5A3FCC.2030504@gnutls.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cryptodev-linux-devel@gna.org, "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:40264 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751915Ab1H1NRK (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:17:10 -0400 Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, I've compared the cryptodev [0] and AF_ALG interfaces in terms of performance [1]. I've put the results, as well as the benchmarks used in: http://home.gna.org/cryptodev-linux/comparison.html The benchmark idea was to test the speed of initialization, encryption and deinitiation, as well as the encryption speed alone. These are the most common use cases of the frameworks (i.e. how they would be used by a cryptographic library). The AF_ALG appears to have poor performance comparing to cryptodev. Note that the test with software AES is not really indicative because the cost of software encryption masks the overhead of the framework. The difference is clearly seen in the NULL cipher that has no cost (as one would expect from a hardware cipher accelerator). Given my benchmarks have no issues, it is not apparent to me why one should use AF_ALG instead of cryptodev. I do not know though why AF_ALG performs so poor. I'd speculate by blaming it on the usage of the socket API and the number of system calls required. regards, Nikos [0]. http://home.gna.org/cryptodev-linux/ [1]. Both intend to provide user-space with high-bandwidth hardware accelerated ciphers, thus performance seems a rational to compare.