[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:33:29 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
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>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage
Hi Eric,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> That really was for 1024 bytes blocks, so pretty much useless for our
> discussion ?
>
> Reading your numbers last week, I thought SipHash was faster, but George
> numbers are giving the opposite impression.
>
> I do not have a P4 to make tests, so I only can trust you or George.
I'm not sure how George came up with those numbers, but the ones I
sent are output from that benchmark function in the last email. I'd be
interested in learning this too.
As mentioned in the last email, it looks like potential 32-bit issues
are really just specific to old Intel chips. Other 32-bit
architectures do fine. So, for new kernels, even if somehow there is a
tiny performance regression (though I couldn't see one) on old
architectures, I really doubt it will affect anybody in practice.
Jason
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.
