Size of Libgcrypt (and other libraries) and subsequent performance
ashishg2dec at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 14:32:22 CEST 2008
Thanks for the update. I am currently not in office, however will conduct
more experiments once I am back.
Meanwhile, the figures related to the run time overheads are most
intriguing. Any comparisions on the way openssl handles its randoms?
On 4/24/08, Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> writes:
> > Anyway, running callgrind on these binaries would be interesting... next
> > step.
> Which gave some interesting results. I don't know how to cut'n'paste
> from kcachegrind, but I'm attaching a gzip'ed callgrind.out in case
> anyone want to into more details. The top functions are:
> 97.25% main
> 26.60% transform (libgcrypt)
> 24.20% mix_pool (libgcrypt)
> 19.71% add_randomness (libgcrypt)
> 17.67% _gcry_rmd160_mixblock (libgcrypt)
> 15.47% do_fast_random_poll (libgcrypt)
> 14.24% asn1_find_node (libtasn1)
> 8.64% malloc
> 6.75% free
> 6.17% asn1_delete_structure (libtasn1)
> 6.11% strcmp
> 5.89% _gcry_randomize
> 5.54% _asn1_remove_node
> 5.38% _gcry_rmd160_hash_buffer
> 5.24% md_final
> 4.72% rmd160_write
> 4.55% _gcry_rndlinux_gather_random
> 3.80% gnutls_global_deinit
> 3.77% strdup
> 3.67% _gnutls_supported_ciphersuites_sorted
> 3.67 _gnutls_qsort
> Unsurprisingly, the randomness functions in libgcrypt take up most of
> the time. Libgcrypt's random function mixes the pool a few times, which
> explains the uses of hashing and in particular RIPE-MD-160.
> What's surprising is that libtasn1 takes 14% of the time to parse the
> certificate. However, I think we need more evidence to start optimizing
> that -- it is a one-time startup cost and wall time elapsed time is
> likely small.
> It is funny that the gnutls function that takes the most time is the
> global deinitialization function!
> The other gnutls functions are related to sorting the cipher suite
> during the handshake. It can probably be optimized a bit, but I'm not
> sure it is worth it.
> Improving the randomness stuff is likely to give much better return of
> investment. There seems to be plenty of evidence now that we should do
> something about that.
> The openssl kcachegrind output wasn't very readable since I'm using
> stripped libraries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnutls-devel