|
Message-ID: <CAKGDhHVKmjGoPWWEe1MAV3eVo806rrs3hwHL091isvV-2L1d5g@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 01:18:46 +0200 From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [GSoC] John the Ripper support for PHC finalists 2015-04-27 3:50 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>: > BTW, bumping into total GPU global memory size may be realistic with > these memory-hard hashes. Our TITAN's 6 GB was the performance > limiting factor in some of the benchmarks here: > http://www.openwall.com/lists/crypt-dev/2014/03/13/1 I use only 128MB for the experimenst i removed almost everything from my code except the biggest bottleneck: #define F(i) { \ i0 = ((i) - 0*4) & mask1; \ i1 = ((i) - 2*4) & mask1; \ i2 = ((i) - 3*4) & mask1; \ i3 = ((i) - 7*4) & mask1; \ i4 = ((i) - 13*4) & mask1; \ } #define H(i, random_number) { \ for (j = 0; j < 128; j = j+4) \ { \ F(i+j); \ index_local = (((i + j) >> 2) - 0x1000 + (random_number & 0x1fff)) & mask; \ index_local = index_local << 2; \ \ v1=vload4(0,S+sMAP(index_local)); \ v= v+(v1<<1); \ v1=v1+(v<<2); \ vstore4(v1,0,S+sMAP(index_local)); \ \ random_number = S[sMAP(i3)]; \ } \ } and the gws number with the memory usage were the same, I can nothing to do with this bottleneck but If I remove everything from the code, GWS also doesn't differ another thing index_local = (((i + j) >> 2) - 0x1000 + (random_number & 0x1fff)) & mask; \ 0x1fff*8 = 64KB, we could cache this segment but today graphic cards rarely has 64KB of local memory, on super we have 48kB and 32KB it is even worse because this is 64KB for the work-group we don't know how much the __private memory we have , we can only see if the kernel compilation failed or not, but I'm not sure of this Im woried about using only 128 MB of memory thanks
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.