[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mpro.mlj5b002p40hc0oth.taviso@cmpxchg8b.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:25:50 -0700
From: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...xchg8b.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: minor raw-sha1-ng pull request
magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 2013, at 19:22 , magnum
> <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, I get this for non-OMP build: Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 (pwlen <= 15)
> > [128/128 AVX intrinsics 4x]... DONE Raw: 23784K c/s real, 23784K c/s
> > virtual
> >
> > And this for OMP-build but running 1 core: Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1
> > (pwlen <= 15) [128/128 AVX intrinsics 4x]... DONE Raw: 23553K c/s real,
> > 23553K c/s virtual
> >
> > That's fine. But trying to use more cores does not work well:
> > Benchmarking: Raw SHA-1 (pwlen <= 15) [128/128 AVX intrinsics 4x]...
> > (4xOMP) DONE Raw: 16872K c/s real, 9373K c/s virtual
> >
> >
> > I see you already have SHA1_PARALLEL_HASH of 512. Look at init() in
> > raw-sha256-ng and try to mimic that - you probable want to use an
> > OMP_SCALE of 3 and the number of keys would be actual number of cores in
> > use * OMP_SCALE * SHA1_PARALLEL_HASH. I bet this will give much better
> > results. But this means you need to dynamically allocate the buffers.
>
> I tried this, have a look at 12b881e.
>
Thanks for the explanation Magnum, I get similar results! I can restructure
cmp_all so it's also omp safe, I sent you a pull request for that. It get's
anoter 2000K c/s on my machine.
Thanks, Tavis.
--
-------------------------------------
taviso@...xchg8b.com | pgp encrypted mail preferred
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
