lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?
On 4/17/07, Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > It seems trivial to keep the last key you were given and do a quick
> > > memcmp in your setkey method to see if it's different from the last
> > > key you pushed to hardware, and set a flag if it is. Then only do
> > > your set_key() if you have a new key to pass to hardware.
> > >
> > > I'm assuming the expense is in the aes_write() calls, and you could
> > > avoid them if you know you're not writing something new.
>
> > that's a wrong assumption. aes_write()/aes_read() are both used to
> > access to the controller and are slow (no cache involved).
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the hardware access is what is
> slow, and that anything you do on the CPU is relatively cheap compared
> to that.
>
> So my suggestion is just to keep a cache (in CPU memory) of what you
> have already loaded into the HW, and before reloading the HW just
> check the cache and don't do the actual HW access if you're not going
> to change the HW contents. So you avoid any extra aes_write and
> aes_read calls in the cache hit case.
>
> This would have the advantage of making anything that does lots of
> bulk encryption fast without special casing ecryptfs.
>

I'm not sure how "memcmp(key, cache, KEY_SIZE)" would impact AES
performance. I need to give it a test but can't today. I'll do
tomorrow and give you back the result.

Thanks
--
Francis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-19 10:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans