Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:11:45 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New RAR OpenCL kernel I'm currently trying to vectorize the rar format because I reckon it might be a good thing even on scalar platforms because I do 4x the work for 1x the potential branches and stuff. Does this make sense? AFAIU I will *have* to use fixed-length kernels, because of how the rar format is laid out. I do have a vectorized version almost running now but some detail is wrong with it (well to be specific, it segfaults :) ). Probably some silly thing on host side, like not allocating correctly - the host code was very fond of the idea that GWS == keys per crypt and I have probably not found all instances of that. magnum On 04/26/2012 12:13 AM, Milen Rangelov wrote: >> >> The funny thing is I got the same 4400 c/s anyway. It >>> got better in theory (less suggestions from the tool) but in practice it >>> stayed the same. For GTX580 I'm using 8192 now since higher figures >>> don't make any difference. >>> >>> > It's not that funny (you probably have the same problem as me). I have that > problem with my progress indicator eheh. The kernel is executing so slow, I > don't know how do you manage it in JTR but I guess it's something similar. > I have a thread that wakes up each 3 seconds and displays the speed based > on candidates tried in that time interval. A kernel invocation takes > usually 1-2 seconds and it tries say a ndrange of 128*128 candidates. Well > speed usually goes around the same 128*128*(1 or 2) value. You can't even > measure current speed in a *nice* way. That's why I am thinking of > introducing an "average speed" for my program, it would be much more > realistic for cases like the rar one :) >
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.