[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01a401cc9fc0$21053b70$630fb250$@net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:48:01 -0600
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: more targets using sse-intrinsics.S
Windows is not a straight forward build. I have gotten it built, and it passes -test=0. I am building a 'pre .S' sse-intrinsics.c build, with cygwin (x86-32), and will compare speeds.
Here are the changes needed for cygwin building (I am thinking about a perl script to run during the make, for win32-cygwin-x86-sse2i build)
1. all lines that are .type need to be commented out
2. all lines that are .size need to be commented out
3. a couple of .section lines at end of file need commented out.
4. a #ifdef UNDERSCORES section needed added at top of file.
.file "sse-intrinsics.c"
#ifdef UNDERSCORES
#define memcpy _memcpy
#define memset _memset
#define strlen _strlen
#define MD5_Init _MD5_Init
#define MD5_Update _MD5_Update
#define MD5_Final _MD5_Final
#define SSEmd5body _SSEmd5body
#define SSESHA1body _SSESHA1body
#define SSEmd4body _SSEmd4body
#define md5cryptsse _md5cryptsse
#endif
.text
..TXTST0:
# -- Begin sse_debug
....
Here are some timings, testing original md5-mmx.S, an intrinsic build using sse-intrisics.c and one using a patched sse-intrisic-32.S.
***Timings md5-mmx.S (original Bartavelle .S code).
dynamic_0: md5($p) (raw-md5) [32x4 .S] 9925K
dynamic_1: md5($p.$s) (joomla) [32x4 .S] Many: 8285K 1salt: 5552K
dynamic_2: md5(md5($p)) (e107) [32x4 .S] 5502K
dynamic_3: md5(md5(md5($p))) [32x4 .S] 3792K
dynamic_4: md5($s.$p) (OSC) [32x4 .S] Many: 9108K 1salt: 5620K
dynamic_5: md5($s.$p.$s) [32x4 .S] Many: 7348K 1salt: 4966K
FreeBSD MD5 [32/32] 6796 c/s
Raw SHA-1 [4x] 7568K c/s
***Timings sse-intrinsics.c
dynamic_0: md5($p) (raw-md5) [16x4x2] 9412K
dynamic_1: md5($p.$s) (joomla) [16x4x2] Many: 8243K 1salt: 5594K
dynamic_2: md5(md5($p)) (e107) [16x4x2] 5363K
dynamic_3: md5(md5(md5($p))) [16x4x2] 3727K
dynamic_4: md5($s.$p) (OSC) [16x4x2] Many: 9311K 1salt: 5739K
dynamic_5: md5($s.$p.$s) [16x4x2] Many: 7655K 1salt: 5097K
FreeBSD MD5 [8x] 14480 c/s
Raw SHA-1 [8x] 5495K c/s
***Timings sse-intrinsics-32.S (patched for Win32)
dynamic_0: md5($p) (raw-md5) [10x4x3] 11449K
dynamic_1: md5($p.$s) (joomla) [10x4x3] Many: 9953K 1salt: 6270K
dynamic_2: md5(md5($p)) (e107) [10x4x3] 6763K
dynamic_3: md5(md5(md5($p))) [10x4x3] 4785K
dynamic_4: md5($s.$p) (OSC) [10x4x3] Many: 11447K 1salt: 6455K
dynamic_5: md5($s.$p.$s) [10x4x3] Many: 9123K 1salt: 5677K
FreeBSD MD5 [12x] 21042
Raw SHA-1 [8x] 7079K c/s
So, the intrinsic-32.S is about 22% faster for dynamic, about 45% faster for the Crypt(3) MD5, and about 22% faster for raw-SHA1.
However, the intrinsic-32.S is about 20-22% faster for dynamic, about 300% faster for the Crypt(3) MD5 (only supports SSE2i), and about 6-7% slower for raw-SHA1.
All in all, this is not a bad way to proceed. These are some very prelim tests. I have not had time to really dig in too deep.
Jim.
>From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>
>2011-11-09 22:57, magnum wrote:
>> 2011-11-09 18:47, magnum wrote:
>>> 2. Should we support this for 32-bit at all? I suppose I can cross
>>> compile a 32-bit .S file with icc (haven't tried it) but I have no
>idea
>>> if it will perform better or worse than gcc on a 32-bit machine. I
>>> suppose this should be verified on a machine that is really 32-bit.
>
>A somewhat experimental patch 0004 is now uploaded. It adds a 32-bit
>version of the intrinsics asm file generated by icc, and modifies all
>sse2i targets to utilize it.
>
>Works fine (and do give a performance boost) on linux-x86-64-32-sse2i
>test target. I'd be interested to hear results from testing on Windows.
>
>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.
