On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:56:56PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Are you maxing out your submission CPU? If not then you're testing > > the latency of the interface, as opposed to the throughput. > > I think it is obvious that a benchmark of throughput measures > throughput. If however, you think that AF_ALG is in disadvantage in > this benchmark, because it is a high latency interface, you're free to > propose and perform another one. I haven't seen anywhere how is this > interface was supposed to be used, nor about its qualities (high > latency, maybe(?) high throughput or so). Thus, I designed this > benchmark with a use-case in mind, i.e., a TLS or DTLS tunnel > executing in a system with such an accelerator. There might be other > benchmarks with other use cases in mind, but I haven't seen any. Putting TLS data-path in user-space is always going to be less than optimal, especially with hardware crypto offload, since you'll be crossing the user-space/kernel boundary multiple times. The data-path should reside in the kernel so as to avoid that. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
