[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1210137973.4676.15.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 13:26:13 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Sebastian Siewior <linux-crypto@...breakpoint.cc>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Adam J. Richter" <adam@...drasil.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm crypto] AES: x86_64 asm implementation optimization
Hi, Sebastian,
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 00:12 +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> * Huang, Ying | 2008-04-25 11:11:17 [+0800]:
>
> >Hi, Sebastian,
> Hi Huang,
>
> sorry for the delay.
>
> >I changed the patches to group the read or write together instead of
> >interleaving. Can you help me to test these new patches? The new patches
> >is attached with the mail.
> The new results are attached.
It seems that the performance degradation between step4 to step5 is
decreased. But the overall performance degradation between step0 to
step7 is still about 5%.
I also test the patches on Pentium 4 CPUs, and the performance decreased
too. So I think this optimization is CPU micro-architecture dependent.
While the dependency between instructions are reduced, more registers
(at most 3) are saved/restored before/after encryption/decryption. If
the CPU has no extra execution unit for newly independent instructions
but more registers are saved/restored, the performance will decrease.
We maybe should select different implementation based on
micro-architecture.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists