> here are the raw 'openssl speed sha256' results with and without the > patch; all I did was > > tar xzf openssl-1.0.0j.tar.gz > cd openssl-1.0.0j.tar.gz > <apply patch or not> > ./Configure linux-elf -m32 > make > cd apps > ./openssl speed -evp sha256 | grep ^sha > ./openssl speed sha256 | grep ^sha > > This result is on a Core2duo T9300 laptop: > no patch: > sha256-evp 15721 42178 84527 113902 127184 > sha256 26851 58249 97794 119593 127668 > > patch: > sha256-evp 18178 51411 108741 150649 169099 > sha256 34380 76627 130753 159497 171054 > 116% 122% 129% 132% 133% > 128% 132% 134% 133% 134%
Explanation must be the fact that you use 1.0.0 as reference. I mean 1.0.1 has a bit faster code (yes, even 32-bit version), which is likely why improvement appears higher than expected. Well, for some reason my improvement coefficients are even lower than those reported by Pavel, not to mention yours... Probable explanation can be that in my specific compilation fully unrolled code causes cache contention... But as you reported and suggested in another letter, ~20% is more inline with what was reported [for Core 2]. > PS the reason I have not touched openssl 1.0.1 yet is because most of > the systems I use are CentOS 5 or 6 based ; CentOS 6 comes with 1.0.0, > hence I'm focusing mostly on that. You contradict yourself. Indeed, if you are in business of replacing code in specific OpenSSL version, you could as well have taken code from development branch ;-) ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
