Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:14:09 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Shared GWS tuning function On 28 Jan, 2013, at 19:24 , Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> wrote: > 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. I tried it but GWS is still pegged at the default. Oh, I see now, I need to force it with GWS=0. I'll change that. 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.