Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: "karl malbrain" <malbrain@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Apr 2006 11:55:05 -0700
tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
karl malbrain wrote:
Of note is the table organization: 32 or 8 bit. Large tables cause
problems. Tiny table implementations are immune because the whole
table fits in 1/4 of the cache lines needed by large tables.
The problem [as I understand it] has to do with cache-bank conflicts.
Because the memory is dual ported you can perform two [upto] 64-bit
reads at a time. But they cannot be in the same bank on a cache line.
[I'm going from memory, I have the specs around somewhere at the
office].
Right. On Intel machines loads that are back-to-back to the same bank
stall one cycle. Your aes encryption code loads a dword from TE0 and a
byte from s1 back-to-back.
We have a linux box running here that I would like to test on. Can you
post your rd_clock version for linux?? Thanks, karl m
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- References:
- Tiny table AES implementation
- From: karl malbrain
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: karl malbrain
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: karl malbrain
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: karl malbrain
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: karl malbrain
- Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- From: tomstdenis
- Tiny table AES implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- Next by Date: Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- Previous by thread: Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- Next by thread: Re: Tiny table AES implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|