Hi Werner, For some reason, I can't display your message. I got to display it now. I don't have a good comparison performance format for ML-KEM. But here is the raw performance number for MLDSA.
Thanks. -Danny [15:47] danny@ltcden12-lp1 mldsa-ntt_tests % ./perf_mldsa_ntt_opt === Optimized assembly NTT test cpu_time_used (sec)=0.046582 loops=100000 -->ops / sec = 2146751.964278 === Original C NTT test cpu_time_used (sec)=0.229215 loops=100000 -->ops / sec = 436271.622712 -->Optimized improvement over original = 3.920678 -->Optimized speed over original faster = 4.920678 === Optimized Assembly Inverse NTT test cpu_time_used (sec)=0.052021 loops=100000 -->ops / sec = 1922300.609369 === Original C Inverse NTT test cpu_time_used (sec)=0.270790 loops=100000 -->ops / sec = 369289.855608 -->Optimized improvement over original = 4.205398 -->Optimized speed over original faster = 5.205398 ________________________________ From: Werner Koch Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:47 PM To: Danny Tsen via Gcrypt-devel Cc: Danny Tsen Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH 0/5] dilithium-kyber: Optimized (i)NTT support for On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:23, Danny Tsen said: > I don't have benchmark for libgcrypt. I do have my own testing > performance number on NTT operation. That probably not what you are I just noticed that we do have support for MLKEM and MLDSA in our ./bench-slope . We should change that to make it easier torun benchmarks. I was actually looking only for a rough figure on how much performance you gain with your patches. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________ Gcrypt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gcrypt-devel
