Am Dienstag, 19. August 2014, 10:17:36 schrieb Jussi Kivilinna: Hi Jussi, > Hello, > > On 2014-08-17 18:55, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Hi, > > > > during playing around with the kernel crypto API, I implemented a > > performance measurement tool kit for the various kernel crypto API cipher > > types. The cryptoperf tool kit is provided in [1]. > > > > Comments are welcome. > > Your results are quite slow compared to, for example "cryptsetup > benchmark", which uses kernel crypto from userspace. > > With Intel i5-2450M (turbo enabled), I get: > > # Algorithm | Key | Encryption | Decryption > aes-cbc 128b 524,0 MiB/s 11909,1 MiB/s > serpent-cbc 128b 60,9 MiB/s 219,4 MiB/s > twofish-cbc 128b 143,4 MiB/s 240,3 MiB/s > aes-cbc 256b 330,4 MiB/s 1242,8 MiB/s > serpent-cbc 256b 66,1 MiB/s 220,3 MiB/s > twofish-cbc 256b 143,5 MiB/s 221,8 MiB/s > aes-xts 256b 1268,7 MiB/s 4193,0 MiB/s > serpent-xts 256b 234,8 MiB/s 224,6 MiB/s > twofish-xts 256b 253,5 MiB/s 254,7 MiB/s > aes-xts 512b 2535,0 MiB/s 2945,0 MiB/s > serpent-xts 512b 274,2 MiB/s 242,3 MiB/s > twofish-xts 512b 250,0 MiB/s 245,8 MiB/s One to four GB per second for XTS? 12 GB per second for AES CBC? Somehow that does not sound right. > > > In general, the results are as expected, i.e. the assembler > > implementations > > are faster than the pure C implementations. However, there are curious > > results which probably should be checked by the maintainers of the > > respective ciphers (hoping that my tool works correctly ;-) ): > > > > ablkcipher > > ---------- > > > > - cryptd is slower by factor 10 across the board > > > > blkcipher > > --------- > > > > - Blowfish x86_64 assembler together with the generic C block chaining > > modes is significantly slower than Blowfish implemented in generic C > > > > - Blowfish x86_64 assembler in ECB is significantly slower than generic C > > Blowfish ECB > > > > - Serpent assembler implementations are not significantly faster than > > generic C implementations > > > > - AES-NI ECB, LRW, CTR is significantly slower than AES i586 assembler. > > > > - AES-NI ECB, LRW, CTR is not significantly faster than AES generic C > > Quite many assembly implementations get speed up from processing > parallel block cipher blocks, which modes of operation that (CTR, XTS, > LWR, CBC(dec)). For small buffer sizes, these implementations will use > the non-parallel implementation of cipher. Thanks for the pointer, I will rerun my tests with multiple of the block size (e.g. 1024 blocks). -- Ciao Stephan -- 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
