[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EA88706.5070702@hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:17:42 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: OpenMP for MD5-crypt
2011-10-26 09:49, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:45:46AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> OMP for crypt-MD5 would rock too. (...)
>
> Actually, I am tempted to do it for the slower code currently in the
> main tree, but then I am worried that it'd make integration of faster
> SIMD-enabled code trickier. (...)
I didn't realise plain john is not SIMD. I see now it's Bartavelle's
code in Jumbo. But anyway, it can't be that tricky - worst-case is just
a bunch of ifdefs.
> That would be good for marketing, even if -jumbo's intrinsics code
> performs better. ;-)
Everyone doesn't have SSE. And with this slow hash I guess you would get
close to 100% efficiency so a quad-core would outperform a single core SIMD.
> If I do it, can I count on you for rebasing -jumbo on that updated main
> tree (not necessarily introducing similar parallelization for its code,
> but merely making it work like it does now)?
Sure. Actually now that I'm looking at the code again (and the Jumbo
diff in particular) I think the coins finally fell down. As far as I can
tell, md5cryptsse() is thread-safe already so we should be able to make
use of OMP with SSE without much hassle.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
