From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B13E3B27DF; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:27:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784132875; cv=none; b=c8GxldF7QhIVzJPA6ZCG5Kd+wqrBidbHD9u0PtRkeapJ8VApoQ4QqRlpWH5CKepiNzY4XQ900bscnA4h33RaUF9C5650vM9prbwGPkTpgRc5JJGBl9pkV55P/RrQ6qEfNAJsYZJyn/nBbeLLitf9UJNvR2gKgBJVkOK3B4vleqk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784132875; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lj1rgJJQ8Iw7DFQDnqucdEqnKnOgE8yauIKaWfv1cU8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AF0j5CGJK8vVhKbCOmIhkBXoMdKa/r2q2Gdp7jhkpaxJWBMG84fcoLvk7MjZNjjtOAcwwtajVxAGITWsuxhLFFuFPt2jsrRKUTHiIzL/id3xBDmuWwM9DbYt4QB3IdQT9dMwXqiW1PbnI0ZFgqrpICcgjaKdoc9/fbhlwv4CcBQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=MGvWJam+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="MGvWJam+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05F581F000E9; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:27:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784132871; bh=54R+2ukVfD8PZgTffVmOpuZHh7XCR2jNtp1pGUhqRN0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=MGvWJam+kbgESefZNKMsozGwUbsIGMpTwoUjT18AUXzt1JfCEBkzL68tFCCZzQO0u dZOURABJCk4Y5ZogKyGKKqgt5nsjgrVRVIvtvRRdHieGmkjBSb/+UGL+Gwcku0wJKj +EoKyWLYL4y3BrW8IJ4ylICkG714ZxX1t0Ng91Esdz4dTOMXWo6odWHD2xTF3tE6N4 52fZ2RSoCdFBet0pv0yRKOlwER/y1E2xeW5DX6P5WtmAoIj5q1s5qfcrKSxOQQOdII qgAawh8mTu1QrIhijtdu/04RldudnfYbPPRL8coBvv6fkng+BiFCRs/wyP8H4UJt0E sP6GtG7i5dqRg== Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:27:49 +0000 From: Eric Biggers To: kernel test robot Cc: oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, Herbert Xu , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [crypto] 2f204fe718: stress-ng.af-alg.ops_per_sec 113.7% improvement Message-ID: <20260715162749.GA1794078@google.com> References: <202607152204.a0a3bf98-lkp@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <202607152204.a0a3bf98-lkp@intel.com> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 11:00:46PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hello, > > > we don't have enough knowledge to deeply analyze the impact of this commit > to stress-ng.af-alg performance tests. > > along with the major kpi improvement: > > 7756377 +113.7% 16578454 stress-ng.af-alg.ops_per_sec > > we also noticed lots of misc tests seem have changes, e.g. > > 697423 -9.5% 630908 ± 2% stress-ng.af-alg.aes_cipher_ops/sec > 245103 -100.0% 0.00 stress-ng.af-alg.blowfish_cipher_ops/sec > 369646 -100.0% 0.00 stress-ng.af-alg.camellia_cipher_ops/sec > 162192 -100.0% 0.00 stress-ng.af-alg.cast5_cipher_ops/sec > 115113 -100.0% 0.00 stress-ng.af-alg.cast6_cipher_ops/sec > > we don't know if these are expected behavior upon 2f204fe718. > so this report is just FYI what we observed in our tests. > > > > kernel test robot noticed a 113.7% improvement of stress-ng.af-alg.ops_per_sec on: > > > commit: 2f204fe718f5bf519013cc2536ad7bb2cbb51661 ("crypto: af_alg - Add af_alg_restrict sysctl, defaulting to 1") > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master That commit makes AF_ALG block access to some algorithms by default, overridable by a sysctl. Apparently these performance tests misinterpret that as a change in performance. It actually doesn't make much sense to do performance testing on AF_ALG at all anymore, given that AF_ALG is deprecated. A limited form of AF_ALG is being left in place just for backwards compatibility with a few programs. None of those programs use it in a performance-critical way, as far as I know. To the extent that it's still done at all, it shouldn't test random algorithms like "ecb(cast5)" that are obsolete and unused. - Eric