On 12/15/2016 03:03 AM, Gonglei wrote:
[...]
> +
> +static struct crypto_alg virtio_crypto_algs[] = { {
> + .cra_name = "cbc(aes)",
> + .cra_driver_name = "virtio_crypto_aes_cbc",
> + .cra_priority = 501,
This is still higher than the hardware-accelerators (like intel aesni or the
s390 cpacf functions or the arm hw). aesni and s390/cpacf are supported by the
hardware virtualization and available to the guests. I do not see a way how virtio
crypto can be faster than that (in the end it might be cpacf/aesni + overhead)
instead it will very likely be slower.
So we should use a number that is higher than software implementations but
lower than the hw ones.
Just grepping around, the software ones seem be be around 100 and the hardware
ones around 200-400. So why was 150 not enough?
Christian
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
