[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:08:47 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: sunmd5
On 2012-08-04 23:58, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:49:52PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> On 2012-08-04 23:38, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> Here's an obvious optimization, removing the modulo division.
>>>
>>> Benchmarking: SunMD5 [128/128 XOP intrinsics 8x x1024]... DONE
>>> Raw: 541 c/s real, 541 c/s virtual
>>>
>>> or even (best of several invocations):
>>>
>>> Benchmarking: SunMD5 [128/128 XOP intrinsics 8x x1024]... DONE
>>> Raw: 544 c/s real, 544 c/s virtual
>>
>> Committed, thanks. On my laptop it made a more significant boost, almost 4%.
>
> Thanks. I think you misread the above. It's +7.5% here (506 to 544).
I realised that right after posting :)
> I also tried eliminating the sprintf(), but this only hurt performance.
> Apparently, it is not called that frequently, whereas my changes affected
> register allocation in the inner loop or something. (Not submitting.)
I'll run Valgrind again. There must be something more to do, I suppose
we are still at 15-20% "waste" in crypt_all().
I think sapG was somewhat comparable to this. I'll revisit that format
and see how it looks in Valgrind.
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.
