On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:30 +0800, Mathias Krause wrote: > On 12.11.2010, 01:33 Huang Ying wrote: > > Hi, Mathias, > > > > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 06:18 +0800, Mathias Krause wrote: > >> All test were run five times in a row using a 256 bit key and doing i/o > >> to the block device in chunks of 1MB. The numbers are MB/s. > >> > >> x86 (i586 variant): > >> 1. run 2. run 3. run 4. run 5. run mean > >> ECB: 93.9 93.9 94.0 93.5 93.8 93.8 > >> CBC: 84.9 84.8 84.9 84.9 84.8 84.8 > >> XTS: 108.2 108.3 109.6 108.3 108.9 108.6 > >> LRW: 105.0 105.0 105.1 105.1 105.1 105.0 > >> > >> x86 (AES-NI), v3 of the patch: > >> 1. run 2. run 3. run 4. run 5. run mean > >> ECB: 124.8 120.8 124.5 120.6 124.5 123.0 > >> CBC: 112.6 109.6 112.6 110.7 109.4 110.9 > >> XTS: 221.6 221.1 220.9 223.5 224.4 222.3 > >> LRW: 206.2 209.7 207.4 203.7 209.3 207.2 > >> > >> x86 (AES-NI), v4 of the patch: > >> 1. run 2. run 3. run 4. run 5. run mean > >> ECB: 122.5 121.2 121.6 125.7 125.5 123.3 > >> CBC: 259.5 259.2 261.2 264.0 267.6 262.3 > >> XTS: 225.1 230.7 220.6 217.9 216.3 222.1 > >> LRW: 202.7 202.8 210.6 208.9 202.7 205.5 > >> > >> Comparing the values for the CBC variant between v3 and v4 of the patch > >> shows that porting the CBC variant to x86 more then doubled the > >> performance so the little bit ugly #ifdefed code is worth the effort. > >> > >> x86-64 (old): > >> 1. run 2. run 3. run 4. run 5. run mean > >> ECB: 121.4 120.9 121.1 121.2 120.9 121.1 > >> CBC: 282.5 286.3 281.5 282.0 294.5 285.3 > >> XTS: 263.6 260.3 263.0 267.0 264.6 263.7 > >> LRW: 249.6 249.8 250.5 253.4 252.2 251.1 > >> > >> x86-64 (new): > >> 1. run 2. run 3. run 4. run 5. run mean > >> ECB: 122.1 122.0 122.0 127.0 121.9 123.0 > >> CBC: 291.2 286.2 295.6 291.4 289.9 290.8 > >> XTS: 263.3 264.4 264.5 264.2 270.4 265.3 > >> LRW: 254.9 252.3 253.6 258.2 257.5 255.3 > >> > >> Comparing the mean values gives us: > >> > >> x86: i586 aes-ni delta > >> ECB: 93.8 123.3 +31.4% > > > > Why the improvement of ECB is so small? I can not understand it. It > > should be as big as CBC. > > I don't know why the ECB variant is so slow compared to the other variants. > But it is so even for the current x86-64 version. See the above values for > "x86-64 (old)". I setup dm-crypt for this test like this: > # cryptsetup -c aes-ecb-plain -d /dev/urandom create cfs /dev/loop0 > > What where the numbers you measured in your tests while developing the > x86-64 version?
Can't remember the number. Do you have interest to dig into the issue? Best Regards, Huang Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
