On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:23 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:44:11PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > So for future changes, could we please include performance numbers > > > based on realistic workloads? > > > > Yea I share your concerns here. From preliminary results, I think the > > Poly1305 code will be globally better, and I don't think we'll need an > > abundance of discussion about it. > > The ChaCha case is more interesting. I'll submit this with lots of > > packet-sized microbenchmarks, as well as on-the-wire WireGuard > > testing. Eric - I'm guessing you don't care too much about Adamantium > > performance on x86 where people are probably better off with AES-XTS, > > right? Are there other specific real world cases we care about? IPsec > > is another one, but those concerns, packet-size wise, are more or less > > the same as for WireGuard. But anyway, we can cross this bridge when > > we come to it. > > I'd like for Adiantum to continue to be accelerated on x86, but it doesn't have > to squeeze out all performance possible on x86, given that hardware AES support > is available there so most people will use that instead. So if e.g. the ChaCha > implementation is still AVX2 accelerated, but it's primarily optimized for > networking packets rather than disk encryption, that would probably be fine. > > - Eric I'm interested in using Adamantium on x86 and I hope that you folks won't cripple it :( Jordan
