Herbert, On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:14:45PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> wrote: > > > > chunksize af_alg cryptodev (100 * cryptodev / af_alg) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 512 4.169 MB/s 7.113 MB/s 171 % > > 1024 7.904 MB/s 12.957 MB/s 164 % > > 2048 13.163 MB/s 19.683 MB/s 150 % > > 4096 20.218 MB/s 26.960 MB/s 133 % > > 8192 27.539 MB/s 34.373 MB/s 125 % > > 16384 33.730 MB/s 39.997 MB/s 119 % > > 32768 37.399 MB/s 42.727 MB/s 114 % > > 65536 40.004 MB/s 44.660 MB/s 112 % > > Are you maxing out your submission CPU? If not then you're testing > the latency of the interface, as opposed to the throughput.
Good point. So in order to also test the throughput, I've put my OpenRD under load: | stress -c 2 -i 2 -m 2 --vm-bytes 64MB and ran the tests again: chunksize af_alg cryptodev (100 * cryptodev / af_alg) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 512 0.618 MB/s 1.14 MB/s 184 % 1024 1.258 MB/s 2.28 MB/s 181 % 2048 2.453 MB/s 4.39 MB/s 179 % 4096 4.540 MB/s 7.76 MB/s 171 % 8192 7.981 MB/s 11.67 MB/s 146 % 16384 12.543 MB/s 14.08 MB/s 112 % 32768 13.139 MB/s 14.46 MB/s 110 % 65536 14.254 MB/s 15.55 MB/s 109 % So that means cryptodev-linux is superior in throughput as well as latency, right? Or is it the lower latency of the interface causing the higher throughput? Greetings, Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
