[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120426224022.GA24542@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:40:22 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New RAR OpenCL kernel
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:29:43PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> But with sane durations (like 3 secs @16K GWS) I now have ~4500 c/s on
> GTX570/580 as well as HD 7970.
That's very nice. There ought to be much room for improvement on the
7970, though.
> [...] I'm now trying to figure out how
> to make the host code "sort" the lengths in some effective way. I got a
> vague idea: What if I launch all applicable kernels at once (the host
> code may decide that we need kernels for eg. length 4, 5 and 6) after
> the host code sets up an array with pointers for each length
> accordingly. I think this would be fairly cheap in this context.
Why not just run the per-length kernels sequentially, out of one call to
crypt_all()? Do you prefer to run them in parallel because there would
be less than the full number of passwords with some lengths, and you
want to compensate for that? Maybe only run 2+ kernels at a time in
this special case (too few passwords with a given length)?
Alexander
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.
