[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5a72b8861e0be30a5a5fa3fa9dab5e1b@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:10:37 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Response during OpenCL sessions
On 19 Dec, 2012, at 1:53 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 2012, at 0:24 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>> void crypt_all(int count)
>> {
>> enqueue(Transfer);
>> enqueue(RarInitKernel);
>> for (i=0; i<HASH_LOOPS; i++)
>> {
>> enqueue(RarLoopKernel);
>> + clFinish();
>> + if (event_pending)
>> + process_event();
>> }
>> enqueue(RarFinalKernel);
>>
>> This works like a champ - but has a slight performance impact. For wpapsk on Tahiti, speed
>
> It seems it actually does not work on Bull, regardless of GPU used. The status is still delayed until crypt_all() has finished, as if the clFinish() was optimised away.
>
> On my OSX laptop, I get status output within one second, using the exact same code. What could be the reason it does not work on Bull? I think I'll reboot my laptop into Linux and see what happens...
It doesn't work under Linux on this machine either. Now I'm really confused. Why is this? Maybe clFinish() actually *is* optimised away? Would that not violate the spec?
magnum
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.
