[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfd79fda48b0f409fd792989b60302c4@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:00:47 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: MD5 on XOP, NEON, AltiVec
On 2015-09-05 07:16, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 07:17:49AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 05:25:16AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> Here's what we had last year:
>>>
>>> Benchmarking: md5crypt, crypt(3) $1$ [MD5 128/128 XOP 8x]... (8xOMP) DONE
>>> Raw: 201472 c/s real, 25152 c/s virtual
>>>
>>> Here's what we have now:
>>>
>>> Benchmarking: md5crypt, crypt(3) $1$ [MD5 128/128 XOP 4x2]... (8xOMP) DONE
>>> Raw: 150272 c/s real, 18784 c/s virtual
>>
>> I sort of found it: somehow the code handling SSEi_FLAT_OUT, when
>> compiled in, changes the stack frame layout in such a way that
>> performance drops. I wasn't yet able to tell why it drops. The
>> offsets look properly aligned to me either way.
Thanks, both your patches are committed. I will add some comments to
those "#if 0" later, perhaps change them to "#if USE_EXPERIMENTAL".
I've had in mind to move the FLAT_IN/FLAT_OUT to separate functions. I
never liked all that branching regardless of code/stack size.
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.
