Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:33:29 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
To: Eric Dumazet <>
Cc: George Spelvin <>, "Theodore Ts'o" <>, 
	Andi Kleen <>, David Miller <>, 
	David Laight <>, "Daniel J . Bernstein" <>, 
	Eric Biggers <>, Hannes Frederic Sowa <>, 
	Jean-Philippe Aumasson <>,, 
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <>, LKML <>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <>, Netdev <>, 
	Tom Herbert <>, Linus Torvalds <>, 
	Vegard Nossum <>
Subject: Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage

Hi Eric,

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <> 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.


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.