From: Megha Dey Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: tcrypt - Fix memory leaks/crashes in multibuffer hash speed test Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:45:56 -0700 Message-ID: <1467222356.4247.4.camel@megha-Z97X-UD7-TH> References: <1467098587-1038-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1467098587-1038-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20160628084138.GD15985@gondor.apana.org.au> <57723A08.1010704@samsung.com> <20160628095511.GA16644@gondor.apana.org.au> <20160628123352.GA17844@gondor.apana.org.au> <577383CA.1040204@samsung.com> <20160629081905.GA25215@gondor.apana.org.au> <57738697.1050401@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Fenghua Yu , Tim Chen To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:20267 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751141AbcF2RkH (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:40:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <57738697.1050401@samsung.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I tested the latest cryptodev tree on my haswell machine and this is what I see: [ 40.402834] modprobe tcrypt mode=422 [ 40.403105] testing speed of multibuffer sha1 (sha1_mb) [ 40.403108] test 0 ( 16 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, 1 updates): 32271 cycles/operation, 252 cycles/byte [ 40.403118] At least one hashing failed ret=-115 [ 43.218712] modprobe tcrypt mode=423 [ 43.218712] testing speed of multibuffer sha256 (sha256_mb) [ 43.218715] test 0 ( 16 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, 1 updates): 106965 cycles/operation, 835 cycles/byte [ 43.218747] At least one hashing failed ret=-115 [ 45.346657] modprobe tcrypt mode=424 [ 45.346657] testing speed of multibuffer sha512 (sha512_mb) [ 45.346660] test 0 ( 16 byte blocks, 16 bytes per update, 1 updates): 43179 cycles/operation, 337 cycles/byte [ 45.346673] At least one hashing failed ret=-115 Don't think this is expected, is it? This is the patch which might have an issue? 72259deb3a9f2c07d18d71d7c9356754e7d88369 Thanks, Megha On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:28 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/29/2016 10:19 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:16:10AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > >> Seems to work fine except: > >> 1. The updates are always 1. > > > > Yes the test function only does digest so it's always one update. > > > >> 2. For bigger blocks it reports always 1 or 3 cycles per byte: > > > > Yes the average cycles per-byte should reach an asymptotic value. > > Then: > Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >