[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKGDhHXdtBMSUseUArmRoCj5=8f-Ekxou0wcadEhAq02Ek5=zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:28:56 +0200
From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Argon2 on CPU
2015-08-12 14:58 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
> Hi Agnieszka,
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 01:51:08PM +0200, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
>> 2015-08-06 16:02 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
>> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 10:46:00PM +0200, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
>> >> OPT
>> >>
>> >> none@...e ~/Desktop/rr/run $ ./john --test --format=argon2i
>> >> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
>> >> Benchmarking: argon2i [AVX]... (8xOMP)
>> >> memory per hash : 100.00 kB
>> >> using different password for benchmarking
>> >> DONE
>> >> Speed for cost 1 (t) of 3, cost 2 (m) of 100
>> >> Raw: 24064 c/s real, 3019 c/s virtual
>> >>
>> >> none@...e ~/Desktop/rr/run $ ./john --test --format=argon2d
>> >> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
>> >> Benchmarking: argon2d [AVX]... (8xOMP)
>> >> memory per hash : 100.00 kB
>> >> using different password for benchmarking
>> >> DONE
>> >> Speed for cost 1 (t) of 3, cost 2 (m) of 100
>> >> Raw: 27008 c/s real, 3418 c/s virtual
>> >
>> > Nice speeds for presumably SIMD-less code
>>
>> previously SIMD was 3x faster and this was suspicious for me
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say correctly.
>
> Are you trying to say the 3x difference was suspicious to you, and the
> much smaller difference you've since obtained (how?) is not?
>
> If so, I disagree with you: the small difference is more suspicious,
> because these benchmarks are at a small memory size (100 KB), so should
> fit in L2 cache, and performance should be dominated by that of the
> BLAKE2 code. There's more than sufficient parallelism in Argon2 to
> fully exploit SIMD.
my understanding is that REF code is easy to understand
and simd-opt is optimized also including non-simd optimizations
>
>> > but please note that both of
>> > your benchmarks above (REF and OPT) say AVX. Are they lying?
>>
>> I changed only
>>
>> #ifdef __SSE2__
>> ARGON2i_SSE
>> #else
>> ARGON2i
>> #endif
>> (out, outlen, in, inlen, salt, saltlen, t_cost, m_cost, lanes,
>> memory->aligned);
>>
>> to
>>
>> #ifdef __SSE2__
>> ARGON2i
>> #else
>> ARGON2i
>> #endif
>> (out, outlen, in, inlen, salt, saltlen, t_cost, m_cost, lanes,
>> memory->aligned);
>>
>> and some indef's / undefs in another files
>
> I asked you one thing, you answered another. I can't make sense of this.
>
> Once again: in the benchmarks you posted, all comments say "AVX". Are
> they wrong, and in what way?
they are wrong, in that way that I didn't modified header of file
>
> As to you the ARGON2i_SSE to ARGON2i change inside #ifdef __SSE2__
> above, is this your answer to my "how?" question above (on how you
> obtained the nearly-SIMD performance of presumably non-SIMD code)?
> That's weird if so.
>
>> >> but I was testing these no-sse versions by modyfiyng my code, don't
>> >> know if I can just turn-off simd (?), so I can't be sure of these
>> >> results although I know that structure of REF is different than
>> >> OPT-SSE one(maybe more) function was called a different number of time
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but I find your wording above confusing. So let me try to
>> > ask a clarifying question:
>> >
>> > Are you reviewing the generated assembly code? It's trivial to see if
>> > the code is using SIMD or not.
>> >
>> > And while we're at it:
>> >
>> > How are you obtaining the assembly code for review? Do you replace
>> > gcc's "-c" option with "-S"? Or do you use "objdump -d" on the .o file?
>>
>> I revieved using objdump and I use only objdump
>> files argon2d_sse_plug.o argon2i_sse_plug.o blake2b_plug.o are empty
>> argon2d_plug.o argon2i_plug.o blake2b-ref_plug.o doesn't contain simd code
>> I hope I checked all necessary files
>
> OK, this does suggest you've checked a non-SIMD build. Is this the one
> you reported as "OPT" above? If so, should you remove the "AVX" comment
> from it?
you are suggesting me to removing avx and you are asking if I should?
>
> In general, a common theme in your benchmark postings to john-dev is
> comments inconsistent with what's actually benchmarked. I'd appreciate
> it if you spend the extra minute each time you make code changes to set
> the comments printed by the code to match the actual code.
I will remove next time, but is there a way to turn off simd from john
compilation or by changing in makefile only one place?
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.
