[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603223003.GA26786@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 01:30:03 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Parallel in OpenCL
Lukas,
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Lukas Odzioba wrote:
> 2015-06-02 22:03 GMT+02:00 Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>:
> > [a@...er run]$ ./john --test --format=parallel-opencl --dev=1 --skip-self-test
> > Speed for cost 1 (s) of 0, cost 2 (p) of 0
> > Many salts: 28493 c/s real, 3276K c/s virtual
> > Only one salt: 28493 c/s real, 3276K c/s virtual
>
> Ok, at least it is clear now that we have lost 1000 c/s by splitting kernel.
> Maybe we could limit code size by using gotos, but it would be a stunt
> and I don't recomend it.
I am somewhat out of context on your discussion with Agnieszka, so I am
puzzled by the comments (initially by her, and now also by you) of code
size increases somehow being associated with use of split kernels.
Can you explain?
Thanks,
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.
