Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance vs openssl #7

Closed
tchaloupka opened this issue Aug 25, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Performance vs openssl #7

tchaloupka opened this issue Aug 25, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@tchaloupka
Copy link

Out of curiosity I tried simple benchmark of JWTD library (https://github.com/chalucha/jwtd/tree/benchmark/benchmark)

With dmd-2.068 it resulted in:
dub -c openssl -b release

JWT None:       64 ms, 465 μs, and 3 hnsecs
JWT HS256:      95 ms and 851 μs
JWT RS256:      16 secs, 60 ms, 674 μs, and 6 hnsecs
JWT ES256:      4 secs, 461 ms, 714 μs, and 7 hnsecs

dub -c botan -b release

JWT None:       63 ms, 50 μs, and 8 hnsecs
JWT HS256:      255 ms and 901 μs
JWT RS256:      12 minutes, 46 secs, 316 ms, 390 μs, and 6 hnsecs
JWT ES256:      47 secs, 519 ms, 877 μs, and 3 hnsecs

JWT None is not using openssl neither botan, so it's the same.
There is a huge difference (48x) with RS256.

I know that DMD is bad for any benchmarks, but unfortunatelly it does not build for me with any of:
GDC (Gentoo 4.8.4 p1.6, pie-0.6.1) 4.8.4
LDC - the LLVM D compiler (0.15.1) based on DMD v2.066.1 and LLVM 3.6.0

@etcimon
Copy link
Owner

etcimon commented Aug 25, 2015

I've been pushing this off for a little time now, but it would require some ASM optimizations: https://github.com/randombit/botan/blob/master/src/lib/math/mp/mp_x86_64/mp_asmi.h

Perf gives me the following hot spots:
23.11% benchmark benchmark [.] _D5botan4math2mp7mp_core8word_addFNammPmZm
16.26% benchmark benchmark [.] _D5botan4math2mp7mp_core10word_madd3FNammmPmZm
9.91% benchmark benchmark [.] _D5botan4math2mp7mp_core10word_madd2FNammPmZm

I'll try and merge a fix for this soon

@etcimon
Copy link
Owner

etcimon commented Aug 25, 2015

I think LDC is going to be needed here. I'll invest some time on compiling with that instead.

@tchaloupka
Copy link
Author

Yep, I would also not bother much with dmd on this and it would be nice to have some numbers from LDC or GDC.

@etcimon
Copy link
Owner

etcimon commented Aug 25, 2015

As soon as 2.067 is supported in LDC the plan was to add support. I can't use asm pure nothrow with the current version.

I'm guessing the optimizations from LLVM will close the gap on this benchmark, dmd has a lot of known codegen missing features and 46x is reasonable given the complexity of these algorithms and the opportunities that other compilers can use.

@etcimon
Copy link
Owner

etcimon commented Sep 14, 2015

I added an openssl engine that pipes all Big number operations through OpenSSL, and also added LDC support, and it's still 5-6x slower for RS256 down from 46x. I'm going to improve it towards the point where it pipes public key operations directly through the high-level openssl functions like RSA_sign. I think it's going to be hard to beat OpenSSL in terms of manually tweaking the performance for these because LDC doesn't have manual inlining yet so there's a lot of overhead that can't be eliminated

@etcimon
Copy link
Owner

etcimon commented Jun 22, 2016

I decided to put this through perf and apparently the problem was with loadKey doing a lot of checks. Putting the private key in a static variable reduces the difference with openssl to about 3.5x on x86_64, which I deem more acceptable. However, I will add encryption/decryption/signing/verification engines for high-level crypto objects in the openssl engine to make up for the performance gap when it is needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants