Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:53:42 +0800 From: Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: SHA-1 H() On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:26 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > >> On Power (8xOMP, bound to a single core) >> >> [before] >> MD4: 28248 c/s real, 3531 c/s virtual >> MD5: 19980 c/s real, 2497 c/s virtual >> SHA1: 10593 c/s real, 1322 c/s virtual >> >> [after] >> MD4: 31207 c/s real, 3882 c/s virtual >> MD5: 19980 c/s real, 2489 c/s virtual >> SHA1: 11273 c/s real, 1409 c/s virtual >> >> On Power (1xOMP) >> >> [before] >> MD4: 13398 c/s real, 13398 c/s virtual >> MD5: 10626 c/s real, 10626 c/s virtual >> SHA1: 8533 c/s real, 8533 c/s virtual >> >> [after] >> MD4: 14628 c/s real, 14628 c/s virtual >> MD5: 10935 c/s real, 10935 c/s virtual >> SHA1: 8947 c/s real, 8947 c/s virtual >> >> At least there's no performance drop on Power. BTW, It looks Power's SMT performance is not very impressive. > > Why, a 2x+ speedup compared to 1 thread is very good. It's similar to > or even better than what we're seeing with interleaving on x86. I don't really get it... On my laptop, where each core supports 2 hardware threads, running 2 threads gets a 2x speedup compared to 1 thread on the same core. OTOH, each Power8 core supports up to 8 hardware threads, so I'd expect a higher speedup than just 2x. Lei
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.