Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:25:10 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: PBKDF2-SHA512 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 06:16:42AM +0200, Lukas Odzioba wrote: > 2013/6/17 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>: > > I think you're comparing one core with C+intrinsics vs. all cores with > > OpenCL. Try building with OpenMP enabled for a more relevant comparison. > > I am not even using OpenCL. I attached the code just to show the idea > - it does not have proper valid and other problems - to crappy and not > heavily tested to be commited. > Also I belive that speed could be improved by at least 10% using our > pbkdf2-sha1 tricks and then doubled by proper sse code. Oh, so you're saying that both of your benchmarks were for one core, and that our pbkdf2_sha512_sse() in bleeding still does not implement all of the usual PBKDF2 tricks, even though it does bother to use SIMD and OpenMP. Is that correct? If so, we should optimize pbkdf2_sha512_sse() further. (I haven't looked at the code yet.) Alexander
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.