linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] crypto: qce

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]

Message-ID: <af4c67a6-9ed6-4174-a41e-95b03ab96166@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:17:46 +0100
From: neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...il.com>,
 Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] crypto: qce - switch to using a mutex

On 03/12/2024 16:10, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:53:21 +0100, neil.armstrong@...aro.org said:
>> On 03/12/2024 10:19, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> Having switched to workqueue from tasklet, we are no longer limited to
>>> atomic APIs and can now convert the spinlock to a mutex. This, along
>>> with the conversion from tasklet to workqueue grants us ~15% improvement
>>> in cryptsetup benchmarks for AES encryption.
>>
>> Can you share on which platforms you did the tests and the results you got ?
>>
> 
> Sure, I tested on sm8650 with the following results (they vary from
> one run to other but are more or less in this range):
> 
> With this series:
> 
> #     Algorithm |       Key |      Encryption |      Decryption
>          aes-cbc        128b        94.1 MiB/s       138.6 MiB/s
>      serpent-cbc        128b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-cbc        128b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-cbc        256b        94.8 MiB/s       128.5 MiB/s
>      serpent-cbc        256b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-cbc        256b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-xts        256b       132.9 MiB/s       131.8 MiB/s
>      serpent-xts        256b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-xts        256b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-xts        512b       122.6 MiB/s       122.4 MiB/s
>      serpent-xts        512b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-xts        512b               N/A               N/A
> 
> Without it:
> 
> #     Algorithm |       Key |      Encryption |      Decryption
>          aes-cbc        128b        96.4 MiB/s       141.0 MiB/s
>      serpent-cbc        128b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-cbc        128b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-cbc        256b        67.0 MiB/s        97.8 MiB/s
>      serpent-cbc        256b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-cbc        256b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-xts        256b       131.7 MiB/s       132.0 MiB/s
>      serpent-xts        256b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-xts        256b               N/A               N/A
>          aes-xts        512b        93.9 MiB/s        96.8 MiB/s
>      serpent-xts        512b               N/A               N/A
>      twofish-xts        512b               N/A               N/A
> 
> AES-CBC and AES-XTS with shorter keys remain pretty much the same. I'm not
> sure why that is. I also tested on sa8775p but there are no visible
> improvements there. :(

Thanks for the results !

Neil

> 
> Bart