From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f179.google.com (mail-wj0-f179.google.com [209.85.210.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84B2316B for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:42:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wj0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v7so338630438wjy.2 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:42:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WDahvGuxnISNkCn7QxPFVMWY4x4N5SyC0VbaPXpoSQQ=; b=yIAXLdqALyzw/DTPRDJnFIyOMBZCSt/j+V7WRztvd/wwGWznDKVvuMnpurcjiNCS+y XD2EtG56jNiqLCnogxM+PGjOyPh0o7wGhQrmpsY9REnxeqMaLM7NH+v13tc3UKtNuQKV xTVad8aI9XcVLufFlwO+dbrCTd6v42gz9WMmomegWXfYbnl+vfYjgvKAIJ9VM5diKxi4 KcaFPl9KAp990+JkAkg4qSudvaldqBpiurBr0rfUyynoBQeJjVs8KV5ryNImTGJDWe2A EzEicbty/XhfMZcbl2pDi6JT0LrhBX+LAs4RSk66/pLN/hCoPhFNA65heEOXUQvYu31H u6Zg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WDahvGuxnISNkCn7QxPFVMWY4x4N5SyC0VbaPXpoSQQ=; b=MnKFbxrRUAozo+qFZ/NBl3xFVKb8gyEzGJTqJewyh15cSkryrLOqvpGyUlImeiJ1bi WDck1c+I0J8cBcKLG4yw7GYrkslFS9faLErsEW3o+jMpA+yLcfDRqM378bDy83Px0Zr9 n4sy4+7nJnE0Z5r20LK0DCOuW9EsPjzycLefZjJzsmZVrNHeCtt78cgojcLuBGsh2ADK 9mTZ3DSdBsBqKZ6rLZsz/gbzv54oLuVnZzAraJvq4/b4CfyR3Gulk4wU1iwj0VOcOOsB o7yVlPLHGG6oMyEDSH8om6lKNFWnL4R2n/eKs6yJI6X2QH2GknzpoJpW4JNgG2nKbEWe lFrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01XFucRxaJilZO13PxHuyqHqELYSqTVmm+UWI4warciDkjsZ0qru3J9I1P/winaVQn4 X-Received: by 10.194.107.97 with SMTP id hb1mr54650997wjb.134.1481060572778; Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d8sm6033960wmi.21.2016.12.06.13.42.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:42:52 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: zbigniew.bodek@caviumnetworks.com, dev@dpdk.org, pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, Emery Davis Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 22:42:51 +0100 Message-ID: <6384628.bAnifqqFcF@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20161206211802.GA18108@localhost.localdomain> References: <1480851219-45071-1-git-send-email-zbigniew.bodek@caviumnetworks.com> <370264788.TNfU8e7VBG@xps13> <20161206211802.GA18108@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 03/12] crypto/armv8: Add core crypto operations for ARMv8 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 21:42:54 -0000 2016-12-07 02:48, Jerin Jacob: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-12-06 18:32, zbigniew.bodek@caviumnetworks.com: > > > From: Zbigniew Bodek > > > > > > This patch adds core low-level crypto operations > > > for ARMv8 processors. The assembly code is a base > > > for an optimized PMD and is currently excluded > > > from the build. > > > > It's a bit sad that you cannot achieve the same performance with > > C code and a good compiler. > > Have you tried it? How much is the difference? > > Like AES-NI on IA side(exposed as separate PMD in dpdk), > armv8 has special dedicated instructions for crypto operation using SIMD. > This patch is using the "dedicated" armv8 crypto instructions and SIMD > operation to achieve better performance. It does not justify to have all the code in asm. > We had compared with openssl implementation.Here is the performance > improvement for chained crypto operations case WRT openssl pmd > > Buffer > Size(B) OPS(M) Throughput(Gbps) > 64 729 % 742 % > 128 577 % 592 % > 256 483 % 476 % > 512 336 % 351 % > 768 300 % 286 % > 1024 263 % 250 % > 1280 225 % 229 % > 1536 214 % 213 % > 1792 186 % 203 % > 2048 200 % 193 % OK but what is the performance difference between this asm code and a C equivalent?