[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627150855.GB23048@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:08:55 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Parallella: bcrypt
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:54:31PM +0200, Katja Malvoni wrote:
> In whole disassembly only ADD is used.
That's something we'll need to try to deal with (a bit later).
> Here it is:
> 00000234 <_BF_encrypt>:
> 234: d54c 4400 ldr r22,[sp,+0x2]
[...]
> 31a: 50ef 0402 mov r2,r12
> 31e: 9120 bgtu 240 <_BF_encrypt+0xc>
> 320: 04e2 mov r0,r1
> 322: 194f 0402 rts
We may try two things:
1. Interleave two instances of bcrypt.
and/or
2. Rewrite this function in assembly. The compiler-generated code does
look suboptimal.
> Execution time when using all 16 cores is 294.676000 ms
Why is it this much higher than for 1 core? Is most time spent on data
transfers?
Alexander
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.
