[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:50:42 -0300
From: Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: common find_best_workgroup()
Em 05-07-2012 11:23, magnum escreveu:
> I have already committed an experimental fix. Seems to work fine but
> still testing (I also changed all formats except Claudio's so they use
> the shared function)
I can change mine too. I need only two "new" things inside the default
find_best stuff.
I will comment on one of your commits, just have to check if it makes
sense on AMD first.
>
> I'm starting to think we should drop the whole idea of
> find_best_workgroup. I mostly see random results (picking totally
> different values at different runs). For most kernels you will be able
> to pick a good default. The more critical one is global_work_size, and I
> believe that too can have a good default per format.
>
> magnum
We have been getting different results using "find_best" functions. It
is something i really enjoy to use (on new hardware AND on
experimentation). However, i agree that it is becoming clear it is not
really necessary. I mean, the max possible value is always a good choice.
Anyway, i would like to see if a bug inside AMD driver for 7970 is fixed
and than drop find_best_workgroup .
Claudio
PS: i never use "find_best_workgroup" on fast hashes.
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.
