[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+EaD-a3B11XRTh_Y=PXB5ix4TN-CTv5_-hkSh=X3r813H7HVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:14:51 +0200
From: Katja Malvoni <kmalvoni@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Parallella: bcrypt
Hi Alexander,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> [...]
> 825/29.68/32 = 87% efficiency
>
> So you might be able to make things up to 13% faster by optimizing the
> communication, as well as code outside of the inner loop.
>
I did some execution time measuring and BF_crypt() call takes between 19.41
and 19.43 ms (19.419 in average). Whole crypt_all call takes from 19.445 ms
to 19.557 ms (19.457 in average). Most costly loop takes 16.74 ms.
BF_crypt() code before most costly loop takes between 2.56 ms and 2.58 ms
(average 2.572 ms) and code after the loop around 0.1 ms. Numbers are taken
from one execution of self test and measured on my code without applying
your patches. In part of BF_crypt() which has execution time of 2.5 ms salt
and key are set. I moved this computation to host and I get 827 c/s without
applying your patch (this code is in my GitHub repo). After that, I
modified code I got after applying your patch. In that case speed is 830
c/s. I left typedef BF_word BF_binary[6] on Epiphany side. if I change it
to typedef BF_word BF_binary[2] than output buffer doesn't look the same on
host and Epiphany side (this code is in
~kmalvoni/integration/JohnTheRipper/).
I also ported BF_fmt implementation to Epiphany, it's much slower, 732 c/s
(in ~kmalvoni/JohnTheRipper/).
Katja
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
