[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d71abbe482375afba3354f0533044b1@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:44:28 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mschap-v2 conversion
On 2012-06-26 15:02, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06:47AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> Solar may respond much better when he gets some more time.
>
> I'm sorry, but my opinion is that tuning OpenMP performance with the
> current early/experimental bitslicing implementation for this format is
> premature.
This is my fault, I just noticed she broke OMP and she went off fixing
it. Anyway, even if it's not time to really *tune* it, it should
definitely not be slower than running one core.
> Notice that the speedup from bitslicing without OpenMP is quite low,
> compared to what we're seeing for purely DES formats (much higher
> speedup there). I guess this might be because of the uses of MD4 and
> the conversions to/from bitslice representation, but that does not
> explain the low speed for the "many salts" case (the uses of MD4 are in
> key setup only). We need to seriously look into this and see what can
> be done about it.
I presume Deepika is not really interested in this particular format but
in bit-slicing, so using SSE2 for MD4 might be out of scope. I could add
SSE2 for MD4 at some point if it helps. I just need to understand the
context. If we always have 32 or 64 (or 128) keys at a time, it should
be a walk in the park.
I just know the basic theory of BS. Deepika, what is the expected
speedup from just BS (no OMP) if this had been a straight format with no
MD4 and stuff involved? If we run 64-bit, we do 64 items at a time,
right? But it's not 64x faster of course. How much faster, in general,
should it be?
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.
