Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/openssl: performance improvements

[Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>]

Hi Pablo,
On 8/15/2017 12:56 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:45 AM
>> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>;
>> dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>
>> Cc: hemant.agrawal@nxp.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/openssl: performance improvements
>>
>> On 8/14/2017 7:47 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>> Hi Akhil,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:08 PM
>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>;
>>>> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] crypto/openssl: performance improvements
>>>>
>>>> key and algo are added in the openssl ctx during session
>>>> initialization instead of adding it for each packet.
>>>>
>>>> Also in case of HMAC the openssl APIs HMAC_XXX give better
>>>> performance for all HMAC cases.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch, nice optimization!
>>> Could you split this into two patches, as you are doing two different
>> things here?
>>> One for the first sentence and another one for the second sentence.
>>> Also, as you do that, could you rename the title to be more explicit?
>>> Like: crypto/openssl: initialize cipher key at session init
>>>
>>> Finally, I was looking at GCM, and I think it could benefit from this.
>>> I will send a separate patch for it, unless you want to integrate it in this
>> patchset yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Ok I would split the patches.
>> For GCM I will try to incorporate in this patchset, if I get some performance
>> improvement, or I would send a different patch later if some issue comes.
> 
> Thanks Ahkil. Since I am working on AES-CCM for this PMD, I have the change
> already done. I have seen performance improvements, but it is not as straight forward
> as the cipher algorithms, because GMAC is also affected, which is in a different code path,
> but requires GCM to be set.
> 

If you have the change and it is working fine, then you can send your 
patch, no issues in that.

Thanks,
Akhil