[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67dd1411a284a6cbdb5c1cbb0785f2b5@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 00:00:54 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: nVidia Maxwell support (was: john-users)
On 2014-09-11 10:57, Solar Designer wrote:
> For now, I think someone with a Maxwell GPU should try building and
> benchmarking our descrypt-opencl on it with the S-boxes that use
> bitselect().
Is it safe to assume that OpenCL's bitselect() function will boil down
to the new instructions on Maxwell? Or is it not that simple?
For example, we have many cases like this:
#ifdef USE_BITSELECT
#define F(x, y, z) bitselect((z), (y), (x))
#define G(x, y, z) bitselect((y), (x), (z))
#else
#define F(x, y, z) ((z) ^ ((x) & ((y) ^ (z))))
#define G(x, y, z) ((y) ^ ((z) & ((x) ^ (y))))
#endif
or this new one (courtesy of Milen), that I plan to add to a bunch of
kernels:
#ifdef USE_BITSELECT
#define SWAP32(x) bitselect(rotate(x, 24U), rotate(x, 8U), 0x00FF00FFU)
#else
inline uint SWAP32(uint x)
{
x = rotate(x, 16U);
return ((x & 0x00FF00FF) << 8) + ((x >> 8) & 0x00FF00FF);
}
#endif
The thing is, we currently only define USE_BITSELECT for AMD devices.
Would it be safer, in the nvidia case, to leave the non-bitselect
versions for the optimizer to consider? Or would it be safer to use
bitselect, or should it really not matter? It seems to still matter on AMD.
If use of bitselect() increases the chance for better low-level code for
nvidia too, maybe we should always define USE_BITSELECT (I'd still keep
the #ifdefs for quick benchmarks with/without them, as well as for
reference).
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.
