lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto
    Herbert,

    On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:14:45PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
    > Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:
    > >
    > > chunksize af_alg cryptodev (100 * cryptodev / af_alg)
    > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > 512 4.169 MB/s 7.113 MB/s 171 %
    > > 1024 7.904 MB/s 12.957 MB/s 164 %
    > > 2048 13.163 MB/s 19.683 MB/s 150 %
    > > 4096 20.218 MB/s 26.960 MB/s 133 %
    > > 8192 27.539 MB/s 34.373 MB/s 125 %
    > > 16384 33.730 MB/s 39.997 MB/s 119 %
    > > 32768 37.399 MB/s 42.727 MB/s 114 %
    > > 65536 40.004 MB/s 44.660 MB/s 112 %
    >
    > Are you maxing out your submission CPU? If not then you're testing
    > the latency of the interface, as opposed to the throughput.

    Good point. So in order to also test the throughput, I've put my OpenRD
    under load:

    | stress -c 2 -i 2 -m 2 --vm-bytes 64MB

    and ran the tests again:

    chunksize af_alg cryptodev (100 * cryptodev / af_alg)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    512 0.618 MB/s 1.14 MB/s 184 %
    1024 1.258 MB/s 2.28 MB/s 181 %
    2048 2.453 MB/s 4.39 MB/s 179 %
    4096 4.540 MB/s 7.76 MB/s 171 %
    8192 7.981 MB/s 11.67 MB/s 146 %
    16384 12.543 MB/s 14.08 MB/s 112 %
    32768 13.139 MB/s 14.46 MB/s 110 %
    65536 14.254 MB/s 15.55 MB/s 109 %

    So that means cryptodev-linux is superior in throughput as well as
    latency, right? Or is it the lower latency of the interface causing the
    higher throughput?

    Greetings, Phil


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-01 17:11    [W:0.022 / U:58.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site