Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:08:47 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: sunmd5

On 2012-08-04 23:58, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:49:52PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> On 2012-08-04 23:38, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> Here's an obvious optimization, removing the modulo division.
>>> Benchmarking: SunMD5 [128/128 XOP intrinsics 8x x1024]... DONE
>>> Raw:    541 c/s real, 541 c/s virtual
>>> or even (best of several invocations):
>>> Benchmarking: SunMD5 [128/128 XOP intrinsics 8x x1024]... DONE
>>> Raw:    544 c/s real, 544 c/s virtual
>> Committed, thanks. On my laptop it made a more significant boost, almost 4%.
> Thanks.  I think you misread the above.  It's +7.5% here (506 to 544).

I realised that right after posting :)

> I also tried eliminating the sprintf(), but this only hurt performance.
> Apparently, it is not called that frequently, whereas my changes affected
> register allocation in the inner loop or something.  (Not submitting.)

I'll run Valgrind again. There must be something more to do, I suppose
we are still at 15-20% "waste" in crypt_all().

I think sapG was somewhat comparable to this. I'll revisit that format
and see how it looks in Valgrind.


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.