[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5d3b9eb8db06d5360a831190fc0c822@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:56:13 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: common find_best_workgroup()
On 2012-07-05 16:23, magnum wrote:
> I have already committed an experimental fix. Seems to work fine but
> still testing (I also changed all formats except Claudio's so they use
> the shared function)
I reverted this change (using a shared find_best_workgroup() ) for
opencl_xsha512_fmt.c because it had a "special" loop in its local one:
it runs each size 10 times and sums the exec time. And its performance
got worse (selecting a lower LWS) with the shared one.
This gave me this idea (to-do) for the shared one:
1. perform a warm-up run of crypt_all() before the loop, but check the
exec time.
2. From that exec time, chose a suitable number of loops (targeting a
minimum sum of exec times)
3. Do wot myrice did, using that number of loops.
This might greatly reduce the "randomness" I have experienced with
find_best(). And when this is implemented, opencl_xsha512_fmt.c can get
on this train too again :)
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.
