On 7 February 2014 10:44, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:42:14AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> Another example is bit sliced AES like the implementation in >> arch/arm/crypto. It is 45% faster than the ordinary ARM asm >> implementation, but its natural chunk size is 8 blocks. Passing fewer >> blocks hurts performance, while passing more blocks does not give any >> additional benefit at all. >> >> So in many cases, it would be good to know the preferred chunk size of >> an algorithm. > > So are there cases where passing more blocks hurt the performance > or not? > >From the point of the core algo implementation, probably not, it just levels off asymptotically. So i get your point: I will have a go at passing the entire buffer to ecb(%s), and then wrapping the chaining mode around that. I guess you don't think the (avoidable) additional memory usage is a concern? -- Ard. -- 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
