[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:40:12 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:37 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@...encehorizons.net> wrote:
> SipHash annihilates the competition on 64-bit superscalar hardware.
> SipHash dominates the field on 64-bit in-order hardware.
> SipHash wins easily on 32-bit hardware *with enough registers*.
> On register-starved 32-bit machines, it really struggles.
>
> As I explained, in that last case, SipHash barely wins at all.
> (On a P4, it actually *loses* to MD5, not that anyone cares. Running
> on a P4 and caring about performance are mutually exclusive.)
>From the discussion off list which examined your benchmark code, it
looks like we're going to move ahead with SipHash.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
