[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5106C24F.1090002@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:24:15 -0200
From: Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Shared GWS tuning function
Em 28-01-2013 15:54, magnum escreveu:
> On 28 Jan, 2013, at 18:32 , Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> wrote:
>> Em 27-01-2013 22:58, magnum escreveu:
>>> In bleeding, Claudio has added a shared function for tuning GWS. I haven't had time to try it out yet.
>> It is not hard to use, as you can see attached.
> Yes, I'll do all my formats in one batch when I get some time.
>
> BTW in this example patch, I see you changed the buffer sizes macros back to variables:
>
> -#define insize (sizeof(pwsafe_pass) * global_work_size)
> -#define outsize (sizeof(pwsafe_hash) * global_work_size)
> -#define saltsize (sizeof(pwsafe_salt))
> +static int insize;
> +static int outsize;
> +static int saltsize;
>
> I changed them to macros when I made it honour count argument, just for not having to adjust them whenever GWS changes (including in crypt_all()). Doesn't matter when running, but using the macros you don't have to remember that.
During crypt_all_benchmark you can't change global_work_size (i mean,
the user might selected GWS=0).
It is ok to revert to macros, but you have to save global_work_size
inside init (or control if you have to call find_best_gws using
something else, not global_work_size).
A solution to this (not really tested is attached).
> Anyway, that patch is ready-to-go for bleeding, right? We might just as well apply it.
>
> magnum
It worked here and on Bull.
Claudio
View attachment "ver" of type "text/plain" (8150 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.
