[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <575A72DF-B339-4A9A-AD9D-4465C35D32C6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:36:56 +0800
From: Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New SIMD generations, code layout
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 12:32 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what speeds do you see on the MIC now, for these formats? Are we
> hitting the bottleneck with single-thread candidate generation?
Single-threaded:
[zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha256-ng
Benchmarking: Raw-SHA256-ng [SHA256 512/512 AVX512 16x]... DONE
Raw: 1407K c/s real, 1407K c/s virtual
[zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha512-ng
Benchmarking: Raw-SHA512-ng [SHA512 512/512 AVX512 8x]... DONE
Raw: 249164 c/s real, 249164 c/s virtual
Multi-threaded:
[zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha256-ng
Will run 240 OpenMP threads
Benchmarking: Raw-SHA256-ng [SHA256 512/512 AVX512 16x]... (240xOMP) DONE
Raw: 3072K c/s real, 50477 c/s virtual
[zhanglei@...0 zhanglei]$ jumbo/john --test --format=raw-sha512-ng
Will run 240 OpenMP threads
Benchmarking: Raw-SHA512-ng [SHA512 512/512 AVX512 8x]... (240xOMP) DONE
Raw: 2457K c/s real, 90728 c/s virtual
BTW, the latest commit makes sha256-ng fail on MIC. The issue is related to the macro "SIMD_COEF_32". See this function from rawSHA256_common_plug.c:
void * sha256_common_binary(char *ciphertext) {
...
#ifdef SIMD_COEF_32
alter_endianity (out, BINARY_SIZE);
#endif
...
}
For MIC, SIMD_COEF_32 is not defined yet at this point while it should be. Maybe we should include pseudo-intrinsics.h in this file, or put the definition of SIMD_COEF_32/64 to some other common header?
Lei
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.
