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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85951C5DF81 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:23:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Subject: Cc:Message-Id:Date:Mime-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=9wcJzTUVhLKHB1faDQ/nWdN3MtchpzX7Paov6ME6FAg=; b=pFuX9U7NYTOy+m Qp/AjAVDnQex/lQyMeurPfVIHgZRDRrA1icSq9tz/T3M8hLZZX7os8QD54S97BKOP2IiJxajIWu/v aNpIjIl9Ml/0TytsVcpc8YKDo9F27LCdNN8+Un+qrj0tSWaU3VheU1enbFht5BTME2yav3dc7zRha Pa3mqc3Kiw7ihZvnIdG/eXLp6nquGBqDpx7tmbIKkJbWbxeL/m94QUo+qlTLP8egymaL+Pv3e7h7s 8ii8xemcelWrU1Cd1BVgZI1BCgzRwLvwXXOA7GuXftrt2CpU/HvFpq9MmvEyGb+Qlq6ZO+lDW9E7w Qg3x6gvGms9uxcmDvwXw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wwQLO-00000008dG0-2voA; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:23:34 +0000 Received: from out-58.mta0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:1004:224b::3a] helo=mta0.migadu.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wwQLM-00000008dFN-1sVl for linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:23:33 +0000 X-Envelope-To: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=AqJeH+5LKRNmRQzJ4ZHVSBjhlvotk7eHnatQlagjm3E=; c=simple/simple; d=cknow-tech.com; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1787084609; v=1; x=1787689409; b=EuV0Ut8m3bx+Jytvwzqdg2h8IEQsQw453LdXkbQtrC3ORpOre07Tbei7lUgOTZi3qUtj+JsH fYOYY6vJhb8ocWkfupU9xrzbw38FuQ4QVsFVN5SKzhuQv4fvzlggrAK1iDo6Ki3inl5TDlsAsPr FsWizV7G/i8RuUEXHSVYaI17hehjI0H+qjZq2Ti9V1D5BHj6/NMsM0XkrD3tdiBASUL2494i4V2 LAOlenuPwemcftck0H1udTkgnPxgDl7zpA6kc6TFyqBbnrEjAOiu4gjs6wn2g/zxHznh9X4cglb EAQ07jyqXAA93/F7oOkavbjtWiwqcIcYsxhsi4yl8E4+g== X-Envelope-To: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org Received: from localhost (92.254.112.55) by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 00a65aeb1c26adae; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:23:19 +0000 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:23:18 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "Dawid Olesinski" , "Herbert Xu" , "David S . Miller" , "Rob Herring" , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , "Conor Dooley" , "Heiko Stuebner" , "Corentin Labbe" , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] crypto: rockchip: Add RK356x/RK3588 cryptographic offloader From: "Diederik de Haas" To: "Eric Biggers" , "Diederik de Haas" X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0-9-ge948bb7230f4 References: <20260708175837.1718437-1-dawidro@gmail.com> <20260818185810.GA7030@quark> <20260818200454.GA2718123@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20260818200454.GA2718123@google.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260818_132332_688489_FDB03295 X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 7.35 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Upstream kernel work for Rockchip platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+linux-rockchip=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 10:04 PM CEST, Eric Biggers wrote: > tcrypt.c reports cycle counts from get_cycles(), which has an > architecture-dependent meaning. On x86_64 it is something approximating > the CPU cycles (3-5 GHz) whereas on arm64 it is the ARM Generic Timer > which tends to be around 24 MHz or so, over 100 times slower than the > actual CPU. So 9044 vs 115 "cycles" for x86_64 vs arm64 sounds about > expected, and they suggest the real times are likely similar but > slightly faster on x86_64 as expected. Phew, thanks for the explanation :-) > This sort of thing is why benchmarks usually should measure real time. > The legacy module tcrypt.c unfortunately uses get_cycles() instead. What would be a better/non-legacy way to test crypto performance? Is that documented somewhere? Cheers, Diederik _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip