From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754824Ab1IAG0L (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 02:26:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:40437 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754511Ab1IAG0J (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 02:26:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4E5F257F.9060202@gnutls.org> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:26:07 +0200 From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110820 Icedove/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herbert Xu CC: cryptodev-linux-devel@gna.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto References: <20110901021534.GA26330@gondor.apana.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20110901021534.GA26330@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/01/2011 04:15 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: >> >> Given my benchmarks have no issues, it is not apparent to me why one >> should use AF_ALG instead of cryptodev. I do not know though why AF_ALG >> performs so poor. I'd speculate by blaming it on the usage of the socket >> API and the number of system calls required. > The target usage of AF_ALG is hardware offload devices that cannot > be directly used in user-space, not software crypto on implementations > such as AESNI/Padlock. > Going through the kernel to use something like AESNI/Padlock or > software crypto is insane. > Given the intended target case, your numbers are pretty much > meaningless as cryptodev's performance can be easily beaten > by a pure user-space implementation. Actually this is the reason of the ecb(cipher-null) comparison. To emulate the case of a hardware offload device. I tried to make that clear in the text, but may not be. If you see AF_ALG performs really bad on that case. It performs better when a software or a padlock implementation of AES is involved (which as you say it is a useless use-case). Of course, I don't own such an offloading device and cannot test it directly. If you have different values from a benchmark with an actual hardware accelerator, I'll be happy to include them. regards, Nikos