From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6742C4361B for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B9B2376F for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:55:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 59B9B2376F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=pAWGpsvZ7lK3Y+OKMcV8vPX/DRgMEx1AHhc7kjdRQR4=; b=Pk5WjfLdie7WLM44LlRGbhKpF lcdnv+DTONoYPakpuZ+FWPGvqCrs4dakPNF2oJQoxTHmJmgSbMzBfGAshdZEgMLCgYAJn/fWfRu6y xJ5wIU46GkN4OMzIykcbs4Q1VfbhWAFRA092xHGuQKwE4e2ph0iOUZiwylkwj5G1EwiHBy0DIGUOV JGq71kKpFf3V/6gWQgJgTrG5Odoh4dz1VXhpy5bD8TBFSYROgj21jdle2S52EBn4PC7rxtYjUj8li rQYRTFj3U1ZGGnK7sXWkzSIb8HJH559S7Yf0sLg2qprFZmTE+jZxe0BqPnNr8bOdAJYwxJEp25/+F iH5NE9qMA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kpkMz-0008Aq-Ub; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:54:25 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kpkMx-0008AH-8u for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:54:24 +0000 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 19:54:18 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1608177260; bh=1O3+t+XhP6op9L25LamvDqxeBTZ3JIMb0o2j1ie7P3s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=R/WW+BLH4OwB0bUELDV1QMDxxL5Lx1mu/EIf37/GcG12HXa6T93ZNN2L7Y8sfxYgO 3YemQZ58uJc2g7UroqzYaEyGfeR9L2eSMHLMg4swo2ZQumoJ7J7UrZPqdjwdZaqbYJ kUAv62phC/Kwlv3yPJu0Vnd8GWDEW4KYza4ipvWwRG35AMW6VyVyWvrSMF9mMA+/YR TTBAxeOo9VEOSGfuwRyFoJTIn4Vrrxk3uWyP337lLms8d+87bMOgubej54kBGk7zvn x7BKOzu4xPgqXkZIqi4wm8bL0j/PzuMOfguAFgbn8Uy2qNYqgTRU5mS/ay321oMdMH xZw9Cs2hbusuw== From: Eric Biggers To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] crypto: add NEON-optimized BLAKE2b Message-ID: References: <20201215234708.105527-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201216_225423_500866_DE0213A3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.51 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Herbert Xu , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Sterba , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-arm-kernel , Paul Crowley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:32:44PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:48 PM Eric Biggers wrote: > > By the way, if people are interested in having my ARM scalar implementation of > > BLAKE2s in the kernel too, I can send a patchset for that too. It just ended up > > being slower than BLAKE2b and SHA-1, so it wasn't as good for the use case > > mentioned above. If it were to be added as "blake2s-256-arm", we'd have: > > I'd certainly be interested in this. Any rough idea how it performs > for pretty small messages compared to the generic implementation? > 100-140 byte ranges? Is the speedup about the same as for longer > messages because this doesn't parallelize across multiple blocks? > It does one block at a time, and there isn't much overhead, so yes the speedup on short messages should be about the same as on long messages. I did a couple quick userspace benchmarks and got (still on Cortex-A7): 100-byte messages: BLAKE2s ARM: 28.9 cpb BLAKE2s generic: 42.4 cpb 140-byte messages: BLAKE2s ARM: 29.5 cpb BLAKE2s generic: 44.0 cpb The results in the kernel may differ a bit, but probably not by much. - Eric _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel