[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:40:55 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Interleaving of intrinsics
On 2015-06-22 20:03, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:31:14PM +0800, Lei Zhang wrote:
>> MIC, icc 14.0.0
>>
>> hash\para | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
>> -----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
>> md4 | 5687 | **6526**| 6510 | 6209 | 6196 |
>> md4-omp | 669148 |**737882**| 711529 | 662588 | 466019 |
>> md5 | 4182 | 4942 | 5037 | 5005 | **5048**|
>> md5-omp | 520871 |**536854**| 513267 | 462291 | 447378 |
>> sha1 | **2598**| 2321 | 1411 | 1415 | 1346 |
>> sha1-omp |**282352**| 253514 | 180705 | 173886 | 163018 |
>> sha256 | **1077**| 855 | 830 | 887 | 880 |
>> sha256-omp |**119300**| 97882 | 96000 | 98642 | 97627 |
>> sha512 | 123 | 137 | 154 | 165 | **172**|
>> sha512-omp | 15567 | 17614 | 19525 | 20389 | **21333**|
>
> Are all of those speeds consistently in thousands c/s? If so, I don't
> understand how we may possibly achieve e.g. 737882 thousand(?) c/s, thus
> almost 738 million c/s, on MIC with our current approach at OpenMP
> parallelization. We surely should in fact achieve such speed, and even
> higher than that, with proper OpenMP parallelization, but we don't have
> proper OpenMP parallelization for fast hashes yet.
As Lei wrote, all speeds for PBKDB2-HMAC (yes, even MD4 and MD5). All of
them are c/s for 1000 iterations. So 737882 c/s corresponds to something
like 737882 * 2002 = 1.4G hashes per second. I'm not sure that makes
sense on a MIC but that's what it should mean. My laptop figure for
single core MD4 is 33424 which means about 67M hashes/s, and that does
make sense.
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.
