For public reference. In certain degree it's apparent from the context,
but the report is about RSA sign performance difference for OpenSSL
SPARC T4 Montgomery multiplication module and corresponding Solaris T4
module, with OpenSSL being significantly slower. The least one can say
[at this point] is that problem appears to be "multi-layer", in sense
that there are different factors in play. First question in line is how
come same code performs that differently on Solaris and Linux. OpenSSL
on Linux delivers ~70% more RSA1024 signs than on Solaris (if we assume
that both systems operate at same frequency, which is supported by the
fact that verify results were virtually identical).

Misaki,

> I used 64-bit openssl binary to measure the performance.

With above in mind here is something to test. In
crypto/bn/asm/sparct4-mont.pl there is a register windows "warm-up"
sequence that is executed in 32-bit application context only
(benchmarking on Linux had shown that it's not necessary in 64-bit
application context). Could you test to engage it even in 64-bit
application context? I.e. open crypto/bn/asm/sparct4-mont.pl in text
editor, locate "warm it up" comment and replace "#ifndef __arch64__" in
preceding line with "#if 1".

> Let me talk to our performance engineer to see if can collect some
> performance profile on sign operations.

One should probably note that openssl.org has quite low maximum e-mail
message size limit. In other words if message is big enough, it will
bounce. It naturally applies even to <[email protected]>, in case you
reckon that results are not of interest to general public [or choose not
to share them for other reason]. So that if it bounces from openssl.org,
drop me a note, and I'll provide alternative address for delivery.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [email protected]
Automated List Manager                           [email protected]

Reply via email to