[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:31:37 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: latest version of descrypt project on reddit
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 07:23:44PM +0530, Sayantan Datta wrote:
> I profiled the kernel using codeXL.
>
> When we have all 16 rounds unrolled put under single iteration , cache
> hit is +99%. This is supported by the evidence that there is 0% memory
> unit stalls and very little fetch from video memory.This corresponds to
> the first case(4694Mkeys/s).
>
> Next when we put the 16 rounds of des in a 25 iter loop the cache hit
> suddenly drops to 1%. Now the memory unit is stalled 23% of the time
> and video memory fetches are increased by nearly 100x. This would be
> the second case(117 Mkeys/s).
This makes me wonder: what if instead of the 25 iter loop, you unroll
the entire thing - that is, repeat the 16 rounds 25 times.
I think 16 rounds already exceed I-cache size, yet with non-looping
kernel like that the hardware somehow manages to avoid most cache misses -
perhaps by reusing each portion of fetched code many times (due to the
high GWS). Perhaps we can make use of this feature for the entire
descrypt just as easily?
> We can increase the cache hit back to +90% with almost 0 memory unit
> stalls if we can somehow unroll only 4 rounds and put it under
> appropriate iteration count.
That's tough. We can easily do it for 8 rounds (in fact, that's what we
already do in descrypt-opencl), but when we reduce to 4, we have to use
non-constant indices into B[].
BTW, can you check the I-cache hit rate for the current descrypt-opencl?
> With 4 rounds unrolled and put under a 100 iteration loop.
>
> Run time: 0.112433 s
> Rate: 298.438078 Mkeys/s
> Time to search keyspace: 2794.549328 days
Yeah, so that's roughly our target speed for descrypt-opencl.
> Also I did some testing with non-hardcoded unroll of 4 rounds where the
> bitsliced keys are indirectedly accessed by GPRs. The result was similar
> to what we are currently getting in our des implementation.
This is my "we have to use non-constant indices into B[]" above, right?
Can you check the I-cache hit rate for this version of the code as well?
> Now under actual scenario we can't hardcode 4 rounds alone. Is there
> anything else we can do to increase the cache hit and reduce memory unit
> stalls?
That crazy idea with full 16*25 = 400 rounds unroll, along with very
high GWS (perhaps higher than what we use in descrypt-opencl now). Give
it a try. It may totally kill performance on other GPUs, but based on
hints so far I expect that GCN might perform very well.
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.
