Hi Adam,
The iteration control annotations you are inheriting from the CryptoBase
don't seem too good for the couple of your new micros I had time to try,
it is too short for warmup so there is a lot of run to run variation and
it will be a pain if we later run them in the weeklies.
Otherwise
Thanks for adding in AES/256. I think your rationale for DH is fine, it
was something that I was more curious about than concerned. The
-pkeyLength option gives the benchmarks the flexibility we need if we
want to try larger or smaller keys. I don't think we need to include
other sizes by de
updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetcher/8215643/webrev.01/
On 12/19/2018 4:49 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
Hi Adam. On the whole the benchmarks look good to me. Can I ask why
those ciphers and key agreement schemes that support multiple key
lengths aren't called out in the @Param anno
Hi Adam. On the whole the benchmarks look good to me. Can I ask why
those ciphers and key agreement schemes that support multiple key
lengths aren't called out in the @Param annotations? I'm thinking 192
and 256 bit for AES and maybe 1024 and 3072 and/or 4096 for DH. Do we
not need numbers
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetcher/8215643/webrev.00/
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215643
Please review this enhancement that adds two new crypto microbenchmarks.
See the JBS ticket for the motivation behind these new benchmarks. The
Cipher benchmark nearly duplicate
