[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88780998d214656ed1a9489efa304f8a@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:30:27 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: common find_best_workgroup()
On 2012-07-05 19:56, magnum wrote:
> 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 :)
I did the above. Seem to work fine, and xsha512-opencl now uses the
shared function without regression.
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.
