Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 02:05:55 +0200 From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: PHC: Parallel in OpenCL 2015-06-04 0:45 GMT+02:00 Lukas Odzioba <lukas.odzioba@...il.com>: > She also implemented splitted kernel and it itself also degradated > performance (from 28k to 27k c/s). 2015-06-03 21:59 GMT+02:00 Lukas Odzioba <lukas.odzioba@...il.com>: > 2015-06-02 22:03 GMT+02:00 Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>: >> [a@...er run]$ ./john --test --format=parallel-opencl --dev=1 --skip-self-test >> Speed for cost 1 (s) of 0, cost 2 (p) of 0 >> Many salts: 28493 c/s real, 3276K c/s virtual >> Only one salt: 28493 c/s real, 3276K c/s virtual > > Ok, at least it is clear now that we have lost 1000 c/s by splitting kernel. > Maybe we could limit code size by using gotos, but it would be a stunt > and I don't recomend it. test with value 28493 is for the version with split (all the time I've been working on version with split kernels since I created it) kernels. value 28493 comes from http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2015/06/02/33 I don't know where the value 27k is from. speed on --dev=5: for the code with add 0 optimization without split kernels - 37/38k IIRC, maybe 35k. for the code with add 0 optimization with split kernels - 40k speed on 960m: for the code with add 0 optimization without split kernels - 32k for the code with add 0 optimization with split kernels - 37k on amd gcn speed decreased after making two the same functions SHA512 and SHA512_Z even without add 0 optimization (without split kernels)
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.