Alex Elsayed wrote: > John Williams wrote: >> Again, irrelevant. The Spooky2, CityHash256, and Murmur3 hashes that I >> am talking about can and do take advantage of CPU architecture. For >> 128- and 256-bit hashes, one (or more) of those three will be >> significantly faster than any crypto hash in the Crypto API, >> regardless of the CPU it is run on. > > Sure.
Actually, I said "Sure" here, but this isn't strictly true. At some point, you're more memory-bound than CPU-bound, and with CPU intrinsic instructions (like SPARC and recent x86 have for SHA) you're often past that. Then, you're not going to see any real difference - and the accelerated cryptographic hashes may even win out, because the intrinsics may be faster (less stuff of the I$, pipelined single instruction beating multiple simpler instructions, etc) than the software non-cryptographic hash. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
