Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:24:15 -0200 From: Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Shared GWS tuning function Em 28-01-2013 15:54, magnum escreveu: > On 28 Jan, 2013, at 18:32 , Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> wrote: >> Em 27-01-2013 22:58, magnum escreveu: >>> In bleeding, Claudio has added a shared function for tuning GWS. I haven't had time to try it out yet. >> It is not hard to use, as you can see attached. > Yes, I'll do all my formats in one batch when I get some time. > > BTW in this example patch, I see you changed the buffer sizes macros back to variables: > > -#define insize (sizeof(pwsafe_pass) * global_work_size) > -#define outsize (sizeof(pwsafe_hash) * global_work_size) > -#define saltsize (sizeof(pwsafe_salt)) > +static int insize; > +static int outsize; > +static int saltsize; > > I changed them to macros when I made it honour count argument, just for not having to adjust them whenever GWS changes (including in crypt_all()). Doesn't matter when running, but using the macros you don't have to remember that. During crypt_all_benchmark you can't change global_work_size (i mean, the user might selected GWS=0). It is ok to revert to macros, but you have to save global_work_size inside init (or control if you have to call find_best_gws using something else, not global_work_size). A solution to this (not really tested is attached). > Anyway, that patch is ready-to-go for bleeding, right? We might just as well apply it. > > magnum It worked here and on Bull. Claudio View attachment "ver" of type "text/plain" (8150 bytes)
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.