Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:50:59 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: further improved phatk_dia kernel for Phoenix + SDK 2.6 - 2012-01-13  (Read 101465 times)
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 06:09:16 PM
 #101

Vince i editted the code like you said and I got errors.

Diapola what you did works fine. I have 2 5830's testing with now. Expect some Bit.love is all goes well.
1481291459
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291459

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291459
Reply with quote  #2

1481291459
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481291459
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291459

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291459
Reply with quote  #2

1481291459
Report to moderator
1481291459
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291459

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291459
Reply with quote  #2

1481291459
Report to moderator
1481291459
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481291459

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481291459
Reply with quote  #2

1481291459
Report to moderator
Vince
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 07:34:44 PM
 #102

Vince i editted the code like you said and I got errors.

Which one of the changes did you try, both?

Tell me about the error you got, just "does not work" helps nobody!

Like what I'm posting? -> 1DtHZgVufX1tc5jRCoNiUnygenwRWj939C
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:07:32 PM
 #103

Vince i editted the code like you said and I got errors.

Which one of the changes did you try, both?

Tell me about the error you got, just "does not work" helps nobody!

In Kernel.cl
I changed this:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

to this
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])

and changed this

Vals[7] += K[60] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

to this
Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);


Then i changed this
Vals[7] = (Vals[3] = (u)0xb956c25b + D1 + s1(4) + ch(4)) + H1;

to this

Vals[7] = (Vals[3] = D1 + s1(4) + ch(4)) + H1;


as instructed here and yes i added the line to init.py

Quote
Add

self.state2[3] = np.uint32(self.state2[3] + 0xb956c25b);

to __init__.py, line 77 for me, right behind:

self.calculateF(data)

And remove (u)0xb956c25b from kernel.cl


The error is opencl is having unusual behavior or something. it shows MH etc... just when it seems to want to accept a share it spits that out
1bitc0inplz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 03:20:39 AM
 #104

This most recent update is everything you said it would be!

My 5830 went from 295 MH/s to 305 MH/s with just this update!

Thanks for the great work.

Mine @ http://pool.bitp.it - No fees, virtually 0 stales, what's not to love!
Chat with us @ #bitp.it on irc.freenode.net
Learn more about our pool @ http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12181.0
gominoa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 07:19:09 AM
 #105

In Kernel.cl
I changed this:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

to this
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])

Try also changing:
if(Vals[7].y == -H[7])
... to ...
if(Vals[7].y == -H[7]-K[60])

notice Y instead of X. Will be just below the X line
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 09:44:34 AM
 #106

In Kernel.cl
I changed this:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

to this
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])

Try also changing:
if(Vals[7].y == -H[7])
... to ...
if(Vals[7].y == -H[7]-K[60])

notice Y instead of X. Will be just below the X line


Same error
Diapolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 769



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2011, 11:38:08 AM
 #107

Next kernel version will, once more, be faster for 69XX and 58XX cards Smiley. Stay tuned!

Dia

Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo
Vince
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:12:49 PM
 #108

Vals[7] += K[60] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

to this
Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);


is this a typo or did you leave out the "="?

should be:

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);



Like what I'm posting? -> 1DtHZgVufX1tc5jRCoNiUnygenwRWj939C
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 04:55:33 PM
 #109

That Worked , i managed to go from 306-308MH to 308-310MH on 5830.
donations forth coming if it remains stable. Thx...
BOARBEAR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
 #110

Vals[7] += K[60] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);

to this
Vals[7] + Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);


is this a typo or did you leave out the "="?

should be:

Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);



do i need to change    if(Vals[7].y == -H[7])?
and    if(Vals[7] == -H[7])?
BOARBEAR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
 #111

Hi Diapolo!

Great to see you're making progress!
There's one thing that pops into my eye:

you already do:
if(Vals[7].x == -H[7])

why not add the K[60] right into it and remove from upper instruction? Saves a whole instruction and will work 100% ;-)

if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])


Lets see if I can find more ..

how would this save an instruction? did you just move -K[60]?
Vince
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 06:30:33 PM
 #112

how would this save an instruction? did you just move -K[60]?

Yes, just moved it. Now the compiler optimizes it away, before it didn't.


Like what I'm posting? -> 1DtHZgVufX1tc5jRCoNiUnygenwRWj939C
BOARBEAR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 06:50:32 PM
 #113

how would this save an instruction? did you just move -K[60]?

Yes, just moved it. Now the compiler optimizes it away, before it didn't.


Mind explaining more? I don't get it
Vince
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 07:02:44 PM
 #114

Mind explaining more? I don't get it

Its a constant.
If I add it together with the other stuff in round 124 to Vals[7], it takes an addition to do so, cause its the only constant.

If moved to the comparison at the end, the two constants H[7] and K[60] are merged together into one by the compiler, same execution time here.

Like what I'm posting? -> 1DtHZgVufX1tc5jRCoNiUnygenwRWj939C
BOARBEAR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 07:09:28 PM
 #115

So i changed the whole thing to

   Vals[7] += Vals[3] + P4(124) + P3(124) + P2(124) + P1(124) + s1(124) + ch(124);
   
#ifdef VECTORS
   if(Vals[7].x == -H[7]-K[60])
      output[OUTPUT_SIZE] = output[(W[3].x >> 2) & OUTPUT_MASK] = W[3].x;
   if(Vals[7].y == -H[7]-K[60])
      output[OUTPUT_SIZE] = output[(W[3].y >> 2) & OUTPUT_MASK] =  W[3].y;
#else
   if(Vals[7] == -H[7]-K[60])
      output[OUTPUT_SIZE] = output[(W[3] >> 2) & OUTPUT_MASK] = W[3];
#endif

does not notice any speed difference, hope that helps

Ps: Does the compiler really do the optimization? If not you introduced one more step cause K[60] appear twice now
Vince
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 07:18:48 PM
 #116

I'm pretty sure the compiler will catch this  Wink
Note that the speed increase is minimal, ~0.1-0.2% maybe.

Like what I'm posting? -> 1DtHZgVufX1tc5jRCoNiUnygenwRWj939C
Diapolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 769



View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 02:10:13 PM
 #117

Download version 2011-07-11: http://www.mediafire.com/?k404b6lqn8vu6z6

This could be the last version, because there seems no more room for big jumps. I thought I could remove some more additions, but the OpenCL compiler does a better job than I Cheesy. This version is faster than all previous kernels (uses the least ALU OPs for 69XX and 58XX). Should also work with SDK 2.1. If it throws an error with 2.1, please post here and include the error message!

Thanks to all donators and your feedback!

Dia

Liked my former work for Bitcoin Core? Drop me a donation via:
1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x
bitcoin:1PwnvixzVAKnAqp8LCV8iuv7ohzX2pbn5x?label=Diapolo
Turix
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76



View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 02:31:01 PM
 #118

Gained about 1 Mhash (431->432) from the 7th version to todays new version on my 5870 (950/315).

YinCoin YangCoin ☯☯First Ever POS/POW Alternator! Multipool! ☯ ☯ http://yinyangpool.com/ 
Free Distribution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623937
Bwincoin - 100% Free POS. BSqnSwv7xdD6UEh8bJz8Xp6YcndPQ2JFyF
Bobnova
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 03:08:38 PM
 #119

I also gained about 1Mh/s from todays update compared to the previous update, this is on a 5830 at 875/900 in linux.
The previous update made a big difference over what ships with phoenix 1.50.

I sent a small donation, as you've helped me make more money Cheesy

BTC:  1AURXf66t7pw65NwRiKukwPq1hLSiYLqbP
OCedHrt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 04:29:14 PM
 #120

Download version 2011-07-11: http://www.mediafire.com/?k404b6lqn8vu6z6

This could be the last version, because there seems no more room for big jumps. I thought I could remove some more additions, but the OpenCL compiler does a better job than I Cheesy. This version is faster than all previous kernels (uses the least ALU OPs for 69XX and 58XX). Should also work with SDK 2.1. If it throws an error with 2.1, please post here and include the error message!

Thanks to all donators and your feedback!

Dia

Awesome work. Btw, could you explain why Vals[2] = C1; is needed in the beginning when it is reassigned in round 5? I know removing this line breaks the hashing but I'm not seeing why since it isn't used prior to round 5.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!