linux-kernel - Re: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:09:28 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	nmav@...tls.org, cryptodev-linux-devel@....org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto

Herbert,

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:14:45PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> > 
> > chunksize       af_alg          cryptodev       (100 * cryptodev / af_alg)
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 512              4.169 MB/s      7.113 MB/s     171 %
> > 1024             7.904 MB/s     12.957 MB/s     164 %
> > 2048            13.163 MB/s     19.683 MB/s     150 %
> > 4096            20.218 MB/s     26.960 MB/s     133 %
> > 8192            27.539 MB/s     34.373 MB/s     125 %
> > 16384           33.730 MB/s     39.997 MB/s     119 %
> > 32768           37.399 MB/s     42.727 MB/s     114 %
> > 65536           40.004 MB/s     44.660 MB/s     112 %
> 
> Are you maxing out your submission CPU? If not then you're testing
> the latency of the interface, as opposed to the throughput.

Good point. So in order to also test the throughput, I've put my OpenRD
under load:

| stress -c 2 -i 2 -m 2 --vm-bytes 64MB

and ran the tests again:

chunksize       af_alg          cryptodev       (100 * cryptodev / af_alg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
512              0.618 MB/s      1.14 MB/s      184 %
1024             1.258 MB/s      2.28 MB/s      181 %
2048             2.453 MB/s      4.39 MB/s      179 %
4096             4.540 MB/s      7.76 MB/s      171 %
8192             7.981 MB/s     11.67 MB/s      146 %
16384           12.543 MB/s     14.08 MB/s      112 %
32768           13.139 MB/s     14.46 MB/s      110 %
65536           14.254 MB/s     15.55 MB/s      109 %

So that means cryptodev-linux is superior in throughput as well as
latency, right? Or is it the lower latency of the interface causing the
higher throughput?

Greetings, Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/