lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:01:20 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: escrypt memory access speed (Re: [PHC] Reworked KDF available on github for feedback: NOELKDF)

Bill,

On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 10:07:58AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 09:27:24AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Salsa20 rounds reduced to 2:
[...]
> > Let's try to compute the hash 10 times per program invocation, to move
> > the memory allocation overhead out of the loop (is only done once here):
> > 
> > real    0m6.159s
> > user    0m45.363s
> > sys     0m2.584s
> > 
> > Now it's down to ~0.6s per hash, which is better than 0.35s claimed for
> > NOELKDF, given escrypt's 2x iteration count (and thus cost to attacker).
> 
> In escrypt running in this mode, SMix first loop has sequential writes
> and random reads, and second loop has random reads only.  So it's 3*N
> memory accesses (not counting accesses to data that is presumed to be in
> L1 cache).  This gives ~10 GB/s, suggesting that there's also room for
> improvement.

I ran some further benchmarks, with minor changes relative to the above.

With r increased from 8 (1 KB) to 16 (2 KB):

real    0m5.630s
user    0m41.339s
sys     0m2.448s

r=32:

real    0m5.516s
user    0m40.203s
sys     0m2.480s

r=64:

real    0m5.769s
user    0m42.335s
sys     0m2.504s

r=128:

real    0m5.829s
user    0m42.595s
sys     0m2.492s

So r=32 (4 KB) appears optimal in this test.

r=32 and Salsa20 rounds count reduced to 1:

real    0m5.362s
user    0m39.046s
sys     0m2.588s

2*3*10*2^30/10^9/5.362 = ~12 GB/s

I suspect that some of the memory bandwidth might be wasted on reading
from to-be-written-to memory locations into cache, before the
corresponding cache lines are finally complete with the newly written
data and are written out back to memory.  In fact, in the tests above I
have prefetch instructions on to-be-written locations.  With those
instructions removed (leaving prefetches only for reads, not for
writes), the speed is slightly lower, which sort of suggests that such
unneeded-by-the-algorithm fetches are happening anyway.  I could
probably avoid this problem by explicitly using non-temporal stores, but
then I'd need extra instructions to store a second copy of the data into
a small buffer in L1 cache, so that it can be read from on the next loop
iteration.  (And there would be some risk of that second copy getting
written out to memory as well.)  Right now, I am reusing the last
written-to V element as next iteration's input X (in SMix's first loop).
Ideally, what I need is "please do cache my newly written data, but
please do not fetch any old data because I am filling the entire cache
line with new data here", but there's no such hint (the best we can do
is do the 4*16-byte writes rapidly, and we do that already - somehow not
always good enough?)  Colin's original crypto_scrypt-sse.c did have the
extra data copying (separate X in L1 cache and V in memory).  My
changing it to avoid the copying has sped it up.  However, that's when
neither implementation is using explicit non-temporal stores.  Adding
non-temporal stores on top of Colin's original approach (but with the
rest of my optimizations, just without this one) might result in better
speed, or it might not.  This may be worth trying.

> BTW, these recent benchmarks I ran were using 4 KB pages, I think.
> Moving to 2 MB pages may provide some speedup (for both KDFs), as I had
> observed on my other benchmarks.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists