Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:29:53 -0500 From: JimF <jfoug@....net> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: 23% performance regression for brypt (Intel i5-4570 CPU) On 9/1/2015 7:00 PM, magnum wrote: > If only well had a regression, perhaps decrease to X2 only for > __AVX2__? Or maybe this is also about gcc version? Umm, no. The improvement seems to be even better on AVX2. I really think this #if __AVX__ BF_X2=1 #else BF_X2=3 #endif seems to be almost universally wrong. Possibly there is some system which regressed to a slower speed (or like you mention a gcc version), but I have tested Intel-AVX, AMD-XOP and Intel-AVX2 systems. All get good gains going from BX_X2=1 to BF_X2=3 A 25-30% gain is NOT something trivial. Losing that 30% gain because there is some system somewhere which lost 5% seems truly wasteful. I still say if we can not get this static set variable changed to a better value that we simply ignore it within arch.h, and probe the system to find out what IS the best option for the machine at ./configure time. This certainly would be a 'fat' probe, but would get the value correct for the build, which MAY change based upon things like gOMP, compiler version, CPU, even the memory speed may change the optimal value. If we put it into configure, then we will probably want to do it with an --enable-bcrypt-probe since it may be pretty darn time consuming, finding the best value. We may have to build a minimal JtR 2 (or 3?) times, running -test to find proper best speed. The compile could be made minimal by ripping out all *_plug.c files, BUT it still is a compile that would have to be done.
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.