[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:09:57 +0530
From: Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Bleeding device selection
Hi magnum,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> Not yet. I fixed the worst problem in unstable (DES now asks device for
> max LWS). Should be good enough for Jumbo-8 now. Claudio seems to have
> fixed the worst issues in bleeding.
Thanks for the patch. However we should not be using LWS greater than 64
even if the device supports higher LWS value because it will cause more
wastage of local memory. However if the device doesn't support LWS value 64
or the device doesn't have sufficient local memory for 64 LWS size,then in
those cases we should reduce LWS value. Also the minimum local memory
required for this format to run is 2KB per compute unit. Was there any
problem with LWS size fixed to 64 , because most of the device around have
at least 16KB local memory which is sufficient for LWS size of 64.
Regards,
Sayantan
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
