[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150910162647.GA31057@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:26:47 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: SHA-1 H()
Lei,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:04:21AM +0800, Lei Zhang wrote:
> The format prefix 'pbkdf2-hmac-' is omitted below.
>
> On ARM (2xOMP):
>
> [before]
> MD4: 2576 c/s real, 1288 c/s virtual
> MD5: 1651 c/s real, 825 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 578 c/s real, 290 c/s virtual
>
> [after]
> MD4: 2608 c/s real, 1304 c/s virtual
> MD5: 1600 c/s real, 803 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 501 c/s real, 250 c/s virtual
>
> MD4 becomes a little bit faster; MD5 & SHA1 become slower.
For MD5, you can (and should) repair this with OR-NOT.
For SHA-1, please investigate: take a look at the generated code in
both cases.
> On Power (8xOMP, bound to a single core)
>
> [before]
> MD4: 28248 c/s real, 3531 c/s virtual
> MD5: 19980 c/s real, 2497 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 10593 c/s real, 1322 c/s virtual
>
> [after]
> MD4: 31207 c/s real, 3882 c/s virtual
> MD5: 19980 c/s real, 2489 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 11273 c/s real, 1409 c/s virtual
>
> On Power (1xOMP)
>
> [before]
> MD4: 13398 c/s real, 13398 c/s virtual
> MD5: 10626 c/s real, 10626 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 8533 c/s real, 8533 c/s virtual
>
> [after]
> MD4: 14628 c/s real, 14628 c/s virtual
> MD5: 10935 c/s real, 10935 c/s virtual
> SHA1: 8947 c/s real, 8947 c/s virtual
>
> At least there's no performance drop on Power. BTW, It looks Power's SMT performance is not very impressive.
Why, a 2x+ speedup compared to 1 thread is very good. It's similar to
or even better than what we're seeing with interleaving on x86.
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.
