phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <551BC78C.2090501@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:25:16 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

On 04/01/2015 11:40 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 11:01:36AM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
>> Graph for t_min is here (but is somehow strange)
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_Lenovo_X230_i5_16G/m_cost/memory_time.png
> 
> This the more useful one, and it doesn't look strange to me.  There's
> some noise, but if the number of samples was small that's to be
> expected.  Thank you!
> 
> It's puzzling that the Lyra2 lines don't reach 512 MB and that several
> others don't have a final point at 1 GB, though.

It need some tweaking probably yet. Also test is run in single user mode,
I tried to kill all other processes and despite that there is still a lot
of noise when measuring time. 
 
> When you benchmark -SSE versions, what exactly are those built for?
> SSE2, SSSE3, SSE4.1, AVX, AVX2?

For reference versions, I removed sse/avx/-mnative flags to be able to
compile it on other architectures.

For SSE versions I tried to keep the same compile parameters as
in original makefile for the optimized version.
Everything is in hash_lib directory so you can check it.

> (FWIW, yescrypt's pwxform is such that it can be as optimal with SSE2 as
> with AVX, but compilers tend to produce better code for it when SSE4.1
> or AVX is enabled.  We may introduce a hand-written assembly version in
> plain SSE2 eventually, which I expect to be same speed as AVX.  Luckily,
> the performance difference between these different SIMD builds of
> yescrypt is small, though.  Only AVX2 and beyond should differ more,
> once such intrinsics are added to yescrypt-simd.c.)

For yescrypt-sse it uses yescrypt-simd.c and CPU is capable of SSE4.1.

Milan