From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Subject: Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1482335804.8944.44.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <20161221183751.1123.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Eric Dumazet , Andi Kleen , David Miller , David Laight , "Daniel J . Bernstein" , Eric Biggers , Hannes Frederic Sowa , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Linux Crypto Mailing List , LKML , Andy Lutomirski , Netdev , Tom Herbert , Linus Torvalds , "Theodore Ts'o" , Vegard Nossum To: George Spelvin Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161221183751.1123.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:37 PM, George Spelvin wrote: > SipHash annihilates the competition on 64-bit superscalar hardware. > SipHash dominates the field on 64-bit in-order hardware. > SipHash wins easily on 32-bit hardware *with enough registers*. > On register-starved 32-bit machines, it really struggles. > > As I explained, in that last case, SipHash barely wins at all. > (On a P4, it actually *loses* to MD5, not that anyone cares. Running > on a P4 and caring about performance are mutually exclusive.) >From the discussion off list which examined your benchmark code, it looks like we're going to move ahead with SipHash.