Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 20:22:50 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: interleaving in SHA256 & SHA512 On 2015-05-26 09:26, Lei Zhang wrote: > On May 25, 2015, at 4:05 PM, magnum wrote: >> BTW for interleaving factors, you should not just try multiples >> like 2, 4, 8. You need to try all of 2, 3, 4, 5 - and more than 5 >> is probably never worthwhile (if it is, I guess it indicates we >> should look into the code instead of just bumping para). So maybe >> you need to retry all those benchmark yet again ;-) > > Ok, here's a re-test on MIC, with both a OpenMP-enabled and a OpenMP-disabled build: > sha512crypt > x1 > Raw: 6262 c/s real, 26.1 c/s virtual > x2 > Raw: 6606 c/s real, 27.9 c/s virtual > x3 > Raw: 6658 c/s real, 28.1 c/s virtual > x4 > Raw: 7029 c/s real, 29.6 c/s virtual > x5 > Raw: 6946 c/s real, 30.3 c/s virtual Not a lot, but indeed a little RoI. I was starting to think all this work was for no good :-) Like I said on GitHub, sha512crypt is a bit tricky because it sorts lengths in order to avoid diverging threads. So there's not only SIMD_PARA and OMP_SCALE but also SIMD_COEF_SCALE and all three will affect each other to some degree. Maybe when all SHA2 interleaving is stable we can find some better format for benchmarking, eg. pbkdf2-hmac-sha512. I have a feeling finding a perfect SIMD_PARA might involve decreasing a previously tuned OMP_SCALE. 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.