| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJU7za+OAusW-n9F4CLJNSAXVQTE2gxkdgpDFZb2tfys3EZspw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:56:56 +0200 From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@...tls.org> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au> Cc: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>, 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 On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au> wrote: > Are you maxing out your submission CPU? If not then you're testing > the latency of the interface, as opposed to the throughput. I think it is obvious that a benchmark of throughput measures throughput. If however, you think that AF_ALG is in disadvantage in this benchmark, because it is a high latency interface, you're free to propose and perform another one. I haven't seen anywhere how is this interface was supposed to be used, nor about its qualities (high latency, maybe(?) high throughput or so). Thus, I designed this benchmark with a use-case in mind, i.e., a TLS or DTLS tunnel executing in a system with such an accelerator. There might be other benchmarks with other use cases in mind, but I haven't seen any. regards, Nikos -- 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