[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:09:00 +0800
From: Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: tuning OMP_SCALE on MIC (was: Lei's weekly report #7)
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 1:44 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> Thus, please sort them by c/s rate
> obtained when running 1 thread (either a non-OpenMP build or with
> OMP_NUM_THREADS=1), in absolute terms, and start tuning OMP_SCALE
> (obviously in an OpenMP-enabled build and running 240 threads this time)
> with the slowest format. Then proceed to the faster ones.
Below are the slowest formats (non-OpenMP c/s rate lower than 1M) among the 125 I found, and their c/s rates under different OMP_SCALEs (1, 2, 4, 8, 16):
dynamic_1023 [577188, 673663, 650376, 672000, 551764]
dahua [21644, 42613, 75956, 136439, 212831]
Panama [1284096, 1146880, 1819648, 2035712, 1872896]
skein-256 [1482752, 1631232, 2254848, 2530304, 2923520]
skein-512 [1440768, 1711104, 1936384, 2379776, 3183616]
HAVAL-256-3 [1345536, 1452032, 1657856, 2137088, 2437120]
tc_whirlpool [545, 685, 1177, 680, 680]
Tiger [1288192, 1433600, 1645568, 1949696, 2394112]
mdc2 [16717, 26401, 45405, 78721, 133338]
Raw-Keccak-256 [1235968, 1449984, 1841152, 2293760, 3083264]
vtp [464, 922, 1794, 3654, 7112]
HAVAL-128-4 [1486848, 1712128, 2068480, 2915328, 3301376]
ripemd-128 [1531904, 1748992, 2014208, 2372608, 2898944]
whirlpool [988752, 1098752, 1144832, 1500160, 1599488]
ripemd-160 [1400832, 808941, 1857536, 2558976, 3176448]
Snefru-128 [934574, 951920, 1077248, 1479680, 1494016]
Raw-Keccak [1060864, 1133568, 1645568, 1911808, 1969152]
has-160 [987089, 1037312, 1164288, 1376256, 1532928]
Snefru-256 [918178, 1142784, 1081344, 1432576, 1611776]
MD2 [547485, 612705, 735058, 872554, 933647]
VNC [3179520, 4987904, 6769664, 8011776, 8549376]
MongoDB [3656704, 5729280, 7598080, 9051136, 10071040]
keyring [26713, 34285, 42666, 46900, 47627]
OpenVMS [3147776, 4302848, 5317632, 5926912, 6306816]
Raw-Blake2 [1141760, 1236992, 1360896, 1832960, 2039808]
In addition, I filtered out formats that didn't show noticeable variation under different OMP_SCALEs, which I think are not worth tuning for the moment. Some of those left above might need an OMP_SCALE higher than 16 to achieve optimal performance. Anyway, I think it's clear that some formats will perform way better on MIC (than the current state) with a tuned OMP_SCALE.
Lei
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.
