* Herbert Xu | 2008-01-12 11:57:42 [+1100]:
>
>Thanks for following this through!
np
>
>> diff --git a/crypto/tcrypt.c b/crypto/tcrypt.c
>> index 1ab8c01..a935abc 100644
>> --- a/crypto/tcrypt.c
>> +++ b/crypto/tcrypt.c
>> @@ -1705,6 +1705,12 @@ static void do_test(void)
>> test_c
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:47:41AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The inline and not inline performance is quite similar. I guess the
> > little difference here and there is due to some random ctx switches (I
>
> Are you sure you were not just IO bound? It would have been better
> to test in memory
> The inline and not inline performance is quite similar. I guess the
> little difference here and there is due to some random ctx switches (I
Are you sure you were not just IO bound? It would have been better
to test in memory (e.g. using ramfs or just some direct test client)
-Andi
-
To unsubsc
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 01:09:37AM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> Long story short, according to this numbers I'm all for the not inline
> version.
Thanks for following this through!
> diff --git a/crypto/tcrypt.c b/crypto/tcrypt.c
> index 1ab8c01..a935abc 100644
> --- a/crypto/tcrypt.c
> +
* Andi Kleen | 2008-01-10 16:46:50 [+0100]:
>On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:29PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>> * Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>>
>> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>> >
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:29PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> * Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>
> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
> >
> >I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing th
* Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>
>I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
>is significantly faster either. In the absence of that,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:27:46PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>
> I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
> is significantly faster either. In
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
is significantly faster either. In the absence of that, the version
with the smaller size is preferable.
O
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17:10AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
> >
> > Have you measured if the performance doesn't suffer from that
> > chan
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
>
> Have you measured if the performance doesn't suffer from that
> change? Inner loops of ciphers tend to be quite performance
> sensitive and the inl
"Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
Have you measured if the performance doesn't suffer from that
change? Inner loops of ciphers tend to be quite performance
sensitive and the inlines might actually help a lot.
On the other hand se
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:40:58PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
>
> crypto/cast6.c:
> cast6_setkey | -1310
> cast6_encrypt | -4567
> cast6_decrypt | -4561
> 3 functions changed, 10438 bytes removed, diff: -10438
>
> crypto/cast6.c:
>
Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
crypto/cast6.c:
cast6_setkey | -1310
cast6_encrypt | -4567
cast6_decrypt | -4561
3 functions changed, 10438 bytes removed, diff: -10438
crypto/cast6.c:
W| +659
Q| +308
QBAR | +316
3 functions changed, 1283 bytes added, d
14 matches
Mail list logo
