On 05/23/2011 08:12:13 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote: > 2) My testing shows that the coreutils software implementation is > actually quicker on checksumming large files. Not a lot, mind you, but > the difference is measurable (1.924s for sha1sum and 1.998s for > openssl > sha1 for a kernel tar.bz2 ball, for the best of three runs of each). > But > the sys+user time for sha1sum adds up to the wallclock total, whereas > for the cryptodev accelerated openssl run, the sys+user is 0.620s, > i.e. > less than a third of wallclock. cryptodev probably used the CESA hardware. since it isnt using cpu time i guess its technically not a bug. i wonder how much you could actually use the cpu for other things? would a little cpu bound program running at idle prio get work done during your benchmark? that might be a big argument for cryptodev... or even run both openssl and coreutils in parallel; total bytes per second (and heat and power) should increase. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
