On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:15:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for fixing these! I don't have time to review these in detail, but I ran > > > > the crypto self-tests on the affected algorithms, and they all pass. I also > > > > benchmarked them before and after; the only noticable performance difference was > > > > that sha256-avx2 and sha512-avx2 became a few percent slower. I don't suppose > > > > there is a way around that? Otherwise it's probably not a big deal. > > > > > > Which CPU model did you use for the test? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ingo > > > > This was on Haswell, "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v3 @ 3.50GHz". > > Any chance to test this with the latest microarchitecture - any Skylake derivative > Intel CPU you have access to? > > Thanks, > > Ingo Tested with Skylake, "Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6200U CPU @ 2.30GHz". The results were the following which seemed a bit worse than Haswell: sha256-avx2 became 3.5% slower sha512-avx2 became 7.5% slower Note: it's tricky to benchmark this, especially with just a few percent difference, so don't read too much into the exact numbers. Eric
