Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:17:25 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: [GSoC] John the Ripper support for PHC finalists

On 2015-03-30 12:02, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:24:45AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
>> So the speed of C code is maybe good - I say maybe because we don't know
>> yet how much better it can be made.  One of two OpenCL SDKs running on
>> the CPUs achieves about the same speed, which is a good sanity check.
>> The other fails to vectorize the code, resulting in much lower speed.
> Actually, the failure to vectorize is possibly a red herring.  POMELO is
> designed to be somewhat SIMD-unfriendly, including in attack
> implementations (with extra parallelism from having multiple candidate
> passwords).  So I doubt the other OpenCL SDK vectorized it; perhaps it
> just didn't print the warning.  This needs to be looked into for real.

AMD's CPU driver never prints such warnings, and it never reports
succesful auto-vectorization either. Actually I'm not convinced it does
auto-vectorizing at all. I have a few formats that adopt to the device's
reported "best vector width" with pre-vectorized code and the AMD driver
usually respond very well to that iirc.

Anyway the speed difference is almost 15x, that wouldn't be explained
with vectorizing alone.


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.