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.