On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:11 AM Amos Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23/02/22 13:28, Maamoun TK wrote: > > > > Benchmark the implementations on POWER9 and Z15 > > > *---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > | Arch | Nettle patch (radix 2^44) | OpenSSL (radix > > 2^26) | > > > |-------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| > > > > | PowerPC | 0.972 cycles/byte | 1.453 cycles/byte > > | > > > |-------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| > > | IBMz | 0.840 cycles/byte | 0.936 > > cycles/byte | > > > *---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > > What would be more useful here is a column against the non-patched > Nettle speeds. It is sure nice to see nettle being faster than OpenSSL, > but what if this proposed change is actually a degrade in current nettle > speeds on those machines? > I've attached a benchmark numbers of these patches against nettle mainstream that reference C implementation in the merge request descriptions. There's no drawback here whatsoever. regards, Mamone > Amos > _______________________________________________ > nettle-bugs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs > _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
