From: Sandy Harris Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] crypto, x86: SSSE3 based SHA1 implementation for x86-64 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:07:36 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1311529994-7924-1-git-send-email-minipli@googlemail.com> <1311529994-7924-3-git-send-email-minipli@googlemail.com> <20110804064436.GA16247@gondor.apana.org.au> <54B2EB610B7F1340BB6A0D4CA04A4F10013EFF76B1@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: "Locktyukhin, Maxim" Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:43287 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442Ab1HHGHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 02:07:36 -0400 Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1so3162309vws.19 for ; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:07:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54B2EB610B7F1340BB6A0D4CA04A4F10013EFF76B1@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Locktyukhin, Maxim wrote: > 20 (and more) cycles per byte shown below are not reasonable numbers for SHA-1 > - ~6 c/b (as can be seen in some of the results for Core2) is the expected results ... Ten years ago, on Pentium II, one benchmark showed 13 cycles/byte for SHA-1. http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-2.06/doc/performance.html#perf.estimate