[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8884f245a96cd4a99f494fd737b062d0@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:30:52 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: bcrypt-opencl local vs. private memory
On 2015-06-20 23:04, Solar Designer wrote:
> magnum, Sayantan -
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 05:06:40PM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
>> Sayantan took care of this at the time, in commit
>> 97545b7ab51a4e8ddccba1a098f5448d808ae39b which includes:
>>
>> #if gpu_nvidia(DEVICE_INFO)
>> #define MAYBE_LOCAL __private
>> #else
>> #define MAYBE_LOCAL __local
>> #endif
>>
>> I've just tested this on our GTX 570 as well, and unfortunately it
>> actually hurts performance there. (Even though it was helping on our
>> TITAN a bit.) With the above commit, I am getting around 400 c/s.
>> With forced use of __local, it's around 1200 c/s.
>>
>> I merely want to document this in here. I am not suggesting making any
>> further change yet. Either of these speeds is quite low anyway.
>>
>> I am currently discussing bcrypt on GPU with Alain (via off-list
>> e-mail), who managed to achieve much higher speeds anyway, including on
>> his GTX 590 (per GPU).
>
> (Un)fortunately, Alain's initial results that I mentioned above were
> wrong. So no "much higher speeds" for us. I think we need to fix the
> original issue described above somehow. magnum, can we possibly have
> this local vs. private bit autodetected along with GWS and LWS?
Well the bcrypt format could do so. That would be for Sayantan to
implement. However, I just commited a workaround for now, simply using
nvidia_sm_5x() instead of gpu_nvidia().
BTW for my Kepler GPU, I see no difference between using local or private.
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.
