From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] [CRYPTO] cast6: inline bloat-- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:47:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20080112024741.GA27661@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080110092555.GB25076@one.firstfloor.org> <20080110092746.GA11613@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080110133529.GA13851@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> <20080110154650.GA29453@one.firstfloor.org> <20080112000937.GA23721@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Andi Kleen , Herbert Xu , Ilpo J?rvinen , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:56217 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753822AbYALCo6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:44:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080112000937.GA23721@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > The inline and not inline performance is quite similar. I guess the > little difference here and there is due to some random ctx switches (I Are you sure you were not just IO bound? It would have been better to test in memory (e.g. using ramfs or just some direct test client) -Andi