[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cb59ab419de2cef3407390ec708fd80@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:36:29 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: pwsafe-gpu
On 2012-08-11 22:53, Lukas Odzioba wrote:
> 2012/8/11 magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>:
>> -#define KEYS_PER_CRYPT 1024
>> +#define KEYS_PER_CRYPT 512*112
>>
>> magnum@...l:src [1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes]$ ../run/john -t -fo:pwsafe-opencl
>> OpenCL platform 0: NVIDIA CUDA, 1 device(s).
>> Using device 0: GeForce GTX 570
>> Benchmarking: Password Safe SHA-256 [OpenCL]... DONE
>> Raw: 128862 c/s real, 128862 c/s virtual
>>
>> I just picked the number used in CUDA - I suppose it can be even better.
>>
>> magnum
>
> I'll try to make it faster later, now we have more important formats
> that needs tweaking.
Sure.
> Faster OpenCL code is nothing new for me (cl compiler does better job
> here and dummy code is near always faster on OpenCL), after proper
> optimizations they should have similar speed.
> 40% - you meant memset or w[14]=0 ?
The 40% (actually it was >41%) was after applying Solar's patch to
pwsafe-cuda, and then making the opencl code (both kernel and fmt) very
close to the cuda one (running "meld opencl_pwsafe_fmt.c
cuda_pwsafe_fmt.c" and "meld opencl/pwsafe_kernel.cl cuda/pwsafe.cu").
So it was more than just Solar's changes.
magnum
View attachment "opencl-pwsafe.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (5389 bytes)
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.
