Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:46:23 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers: FPU changes Message-ID: <4CE333EF.10406@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <20101116221926.GN2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20101115211350.GE2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4CE1FDBA.9030403@sentex.net> <20101116094330.GH2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4CE300DE.8010304@sentex.net> <20101116221926.GN2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/16/2010 5:19 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > Would your conclusion be that the patch seems to increase the throughput > of the aesni(4) ? > > I think that on small-sized blocks, when using aesni(4), the dominating > factor is the copying/copyout of the data to/from the kernel address > space. Still would be interesting to compare the full output > of "openssl speed" on aesni(4) with and without the patch I posted. Hi, There does seem to be some improvement on large blocks. But there are some freakishly fast times. On other sizes, there is no difference in speed it would seem I did 20 runs. Updated stats at http://www.tancsa.com/fpu.html ---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CE333EF.10406>