[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb9c317ae71dcfde19e008643a44fdcd@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 02:18:19 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: SSE - PARA
On 6 May, 2013, at 1:12 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May, 2013, at 23:29 , jfoug@....net wrote:
>> We may want to audit our SSE-PARA values. I just checked a few on my 64 bit VM, building with icc, and both 32 and 64 bit were non-optimal.
>>
>> Current icc: SHA1_SSE_PARA set to 2 for both 32 and 64 bit.
>>
>> Timing using dyna_26
>>
>> para-2 64 bit, 12.5k 32 bit 10.2k
>> para-1 64 bit, 13.5k 32 bit 12.8k
>>
>> I have not looked much deeper. I am working on some SSE porting, and was simply doing some testing at different sse-para settings. Right now, I have bugs to work through, if PARA is > 1 for my pbkdf2-hmac-sha1 logic, but will get that fixed up 'soon'. I just wanted to report these findings while it was fresh in my memory.
>
> Yes I never checked this thoroughly for the new ICC version (some quick checks indicated no change was needed but I may have neglected SHA-1).
Fixed. I saw a 3.5% speedup.
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.
