On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too. > > f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock > > engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure. > > > > diff --git a/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c b/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c > > index 77e059b..ba63093 100644 > > --- a/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c > > +++ b/sys/crypto/via/padlock.c > > Patch applied cleanly > > > Full results at the bottom of > http://www.tancsa.com/fpu.html > > On large blocks, version 1 vs the above patch show no significant > difference. This is with openssl using the cryptodev engine. I also > compared to the openssl padlock engine which gave interesting results! > > > > 0(via)# cat version1.txt | sed -e 's/k//g' | awk '{print $6}' > 1 > 0(via)# cat version2.txt | sed -e 's/k//g' | awk '{print $6}' > 2 > 0(via)# ministat 1 2 > x 1 > + 2 > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 30 2591851.6 6645345.1 4326340.6 4227917.6 1083181.2 > + 30 2574883.9 8830282.8 4033610.4 4241195.6 1519334.8 > No difference proven at 95.0% confidence > > 0(via)# cat version1.txt | sed -e 's/k//g' | awk '{print $5}' > 1 > 0(via)# cat version2.txt | sed -e 's/k//g' | awk '{print $5}' > 2 > 0(via)# ministat 1 2 > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 30 1124673.3 2320883.7 1527677.1 1550631.9 295165.4 > + 30 1069788.2 2508865.7 1594506.2 1588193.2 389414.33 > No difference proven at 95.0% confidence > 0(via)# >
Thank you once more. If nothing new pops up, I will commit the MFC tomorrow. Unfortunately, no suspend/resume testers appeared, so be it.
pgpCEmxG512GE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
