License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 17:07:57 +03:00
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
* A fast , small , non - recursive O ( n log n ) sort for the Linux kernel
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
* This performs n * log2 ( n ) + 0.37 * n + o ( n ) comparisons on average ,
* and 1.5 * n * log2 ( n ) + O ( n ) in the ( very contrived ) worst case .
*
* Glibc qsort ( ) manages n * log2 ( n ) - 1.26 * n for random inputs ( 1.63 * n
* better ) at the expense of stack usage and much larger code to avoid
* quicksort ' s O ( n ^ 2 ) worst case .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2017-02-25 02:01:07 +03:00
# define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
2015-02-13 02:02:35 +03:00
# include <linux/types.h>
# include <linux/export.h>
2005-09-10 11:26:59 +04:00
# include <linux/sort.h>
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
/**
* is_aligned - is this pointer & size okay for word - wide copying ?
* @ base : pointer to data
* @ size : size of each element
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
* @ align : required alignment ( typically 4 or 8 )
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
*
* Returns true if elements can be copied using word loads and stores .
* The size must be a multiple of the alignment , and the base address must
* be if we do not have CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS .
*
* For some reason , gcc doesn ' t know to optimize " if (a & mask || b & mask) "
* to " if ((a | b) & mask) " , so we do that by hand .
*/
__attribute_const__ __always_inline
static bool is_aligned ( const void * base , size_t size , unsigned char align )
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
{
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
unsigned char lsbits = ( unsigned char ) size ;
( void ) base ;
# ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
lsbits | = ( unsigned char ) ( uintptr_t ) base ;
# endif
return ( lsbits & ( align - 1 ) ) = = 0 ;
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
}
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
/**
* swap_words_32 - swap two elements in 32 - bit chunks
* @ a , @ b : pointers to the elements
* @ size : element size ( must be a multiple of 4 )
*
* Exchange the two objects in memory . This exploits base + index addressing ,
* which basically all CPUs have , to minimize loop overhead computations .
*
* For some reason , on x86 gcc 7.3 .0 adds a redundant test of n at the
* bottom of the loop , even though the zero flag is stil valid from the
* subtract ( since the intervening mov instructions don ' t alter the flags ) .
* Gcc 8.1 .0 doesn ' t have that problem .
*/
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
static void swap_words_32 ( void * a , void * b , size_t n )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
do {
u32 t = * ( u32 * ) ( a + ( n - = 4 ) ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( a + n ) = * ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) = t ;
} while ( n ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
/**
* swap_words_64 - swap two elements in 64 - bit chunks
* @ a , @ b : pointers to the elements
* @ size : element size ( must be a multiple of 8 )
*
* Exchange the two objects in memory . This exploits base + index
* addressing , which basically all CPUs have , to minimize loop overhead
* computations .
*
* We ' d like to use 64 - bit loads if possible . If they ' re not , emulating
* one requires base + index + 4 addressing which x86 has but most other
* processors do not . If CONFIG_64BIT , we definitely have 64 - bit loads ,
* but it ' s possible to have 64 - bit loads without 64 - bit pointers ( e . g .
* x32 ABI ) . Are there any cases the kernel needs to worry about ?
*/
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
static void swap_words_64 ( void * a , void * b , size_t n )
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
{
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
do {
# ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
u64 t = * ( u64 * ) ( a + ( n - = 8 ) ) ;
* ( u64 * ) ( a + n ) = * ( u64 * ) ( b + n ) ;
* ( u64 * ) ( b + n ) = t ;
# else
/* Use two 32-bit transfers to avoid base+index+4 addressing */
u32 t = * ( u32 * ) ( a + ( n - = 4 ) ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( a + n ) = * ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) = t ;
t = * ( u32 * ) ( a + ( n - = 4 ) ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( a + n ) = * ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) ;
* ( u32 * ) ( b + n ) = t ;
# endif
} while ( n ) ;
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
}
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
/**
* swap_bytes - swap two elements a byte at a time
* @ a , @ b : pointers to the elements
* @ size : element size
*
* This is the fallback if alignment doesn ' t allow using larger chunks .
*/
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
static void swap_bytes ( void * a , void * b , size_t n )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
do {
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
char t = ( ( char * ) a ) [ - - n ] ;
( ( char * ) a ) [ n ] = ( ( char * ) b ) [ n ] ;
( ( char * ) b ) [ n ] = t ;
} while ( n ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
typedef void ( * swap_func_t ) ( void * a , void * b , int size ) ;
/*
* The values are arbitrary as long as they can ' t be confused with
* a pointer , but small integers make for the smallest compare
* instructions .
*/
# define SWAP_WORDS_64 (swap_func_t)0
# define SWAP_WORDS_32 (swap_func_t)1
# define SWAP_BYTES (swap_func_t)2
/*
* The function pointer is last to make tail calls most efficient if the
* compiler decides not to inline this function .
*/
static void do_swap ( void * a , void * b , size_t size , swap_func_t swap_func )
{
if ( swap_func = = SWAP_WORDS_64 )
swap_words_64 ( a , b , size ) ;
else if ( swap_func = = SWAP_WORDS_32 )
swap_words_32 ( a , b , size ) ;
else if ( swap_func = = SWAP_BYTES )
swap_bytes ( a , b , size ) ;
else
swap_func ( a , b , ( int ) size ) ;
}
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
/**
* parent - given the offset of the child , find the offset of the parent .
* @ i : the offset of the heap element whose parent is sought . Non - zero .
* @ lsbit : a precomputed 1 - bit mask , equal to " size & -size "
* @ size : size of each element
*
* In terms of array indexes , the parent of element j = @ i / @ size is simply
* ( j - 1 ) / 2. But when working in byte offsets , we can ' t use implicit
* truncation of integer divides .
*
* Fortunately , we only need one bit of the quotient , not the full divide .
* @ size has a least significant bit . That bit will be clear if @ i is
* an even multiple of @ size , and set if it ' s an odd multiple .
*
* Logically , we ' re doing " if (i & lsbit) i -= size; " , but since the
* branch is unpredictable , it ' s done with a bit of clever branch - free
* code instead .
*/
__attribute_const__ __always_inline
static size_t parent ( size_t i , unsigned int lsbit , size_t size )
{
i - = size ;
i - = size & - ( i & lsbit ) ;
return i / 2 ;
}
2007-02-10 12:45:59 +03:00
/**
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* sort - sort an array of elements
* @ base : pointer to data to sort
* @ num : number of elements
* @ size : size of each element
2009-01-08 05:09:11 +03:00
* @ cmp_func : pointer to comparison function
* @ swap_func : pointer to swap function or NULL
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
* This function does a heapsort on the given array . You may provide
* a swap_func function if you need to do something more than a memory
* copy ( e . g . fix up pointers or auxiliary data ) , but the built - in swap
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
* avoids a slow retpoline and so is significantly faster .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*
* Sorting time is O ( n log n ) both on average and worst - case . While
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
* quicksort is slightly faster on average , it suffers from exploitable
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* O ( n * n ) worst - case behavior and extra memory requirements that make
* it less suitable for kernel use .
*/
void sort ( void * base , size_t num , size_t size ,
2009-01-08 05:09:11 +03:00
int ( * cmp_func ) ( const void * , const void * ) ,
void ( * swap_func ) ( void * , void * , int size ) )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
/* pre-scale counters for performance */
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
size_t n = num * size , a = ( num / 2 ) * size ;
const unsigned int lsbit = size & - size ; /* Used to find parent */
if ( ! a ) /* num < 2 || size == 0 */
return ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
if ( ! swap_func ) {
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
if ( is_aligned ( base , size , 8 ) )
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
swap_func = SWAP_WORDS_64 ;
lib/sort: make swap functions more generic
Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2.
Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I
thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions.
The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c.
Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases
for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used;
most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the
byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4
and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not
thrashing the store buffers as much.)
Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice
simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry,
Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer
comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes)
than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code
ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch.
Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added
to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the
builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a
(highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly,
this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their
prologue & epilogue code eliminated.
lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to
optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over
practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort.
Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size
and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the
corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size).
Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal
for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input
size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge.
There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but
they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by
commit 835cc0c8477f with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order.
Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers
merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves
0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes.
The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net
savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the
clever algorithm.
TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I
used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you
want a copy.
I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and
CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last
round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at
least one round of comments and final testing.
This patch (of 5):
Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte
objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up
most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.
Despite what ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims,
very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most
sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g.
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct
acpi_fan_fps.)
The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support
multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were
by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series.
x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14)
With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert
Uytterhoeven.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:49 +03:00
else if ( is_aligned ( base , size , 4 ) )
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
swap_func = SWAP_WORDS_32 ;
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
else
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
swap_func = SWAP_BYTES ;
lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function
In case the call side is not providing a swap function, we either use a
32 bit or a generic swap function. When swapping around pointers on 64
bit architectures falling back to use the generic swap function seems
like an unnecessary waste.
There at least 9 users ('sort' is of difficult to grep for) of sort()
and all of them use the sort function without a customized swap
function. Furthermore, they are all using pointers to swap around:
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:sanitize_e820_map()
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:sort_extable()
drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps()
fs/btrfs/super.c:btrfs_descending_sort_devices()
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:xfs_dir2_sf_to_block()
kernel/range.c:clean_sort_range()
mm/memcontrol.c:__mem_cgroup_usage_register_event()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:snd_hda_parse_pin_defcfg()
sound/pci/hda/hda_auto_parser.c:sort_pins_by_sequence()
Obviously, we could improve the swap for other sizes as well
but this is overkill at this point.
A simple test shows sorting a 400 element array (try to stay in one
page) with either with u32_swap() or u64_swap() show that the theory
actually works. This test was done on a x86_64 (Intel Xeon E5-4610)
machine.
- swap_32:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 48.00; Max = 49.00
Mean = 48.320000; Variance = 0.217600; SD = 0.466476; Median 48.000000
each * represents a count of 1
48.0000 - 48.1000 [ 68]: ********************************************************************
48.1000 - 48.2000 [ 0]:
48.2000 - 48.3000 [ 0]:
48.3000 - 48.4000 [ 0]:
48.4000 - 48.5000 [ 0]:
48.5000 - 48.6000 [ 0]:
48.6000 - 48.7000 [ 0]:
48.7000 - 48.8000 [ 0]:
48.8000 - 48.9000 [ 0]:
48.9000 - 49.0000 [ 32]: ********************************
- swap_64:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 44.00; Max = 63.00
Mean = 48.250000; Variance = 18.687500; SD = 4.322904; Median 47.000000
each * represents a count of 1
44.0000 - 45.9000 [ 15]: ***************
45.9000 - 47.8000 [ 37]: *************************************
47.8000 - 49.7000 [ 39]: ***************************************
49.7000 - 51.6000 [ 0]:
51.6000 - 53.5000 [ 0]:
53.5000 - 55.4000 [ 0]:
55.4000 - 57.3000 [ 0]:
57.3000 - 59.2000 [ 1]: *
59.2000 - 61.1000 [ 3]: ***
61.1000 - 63.0000 [ 5]: *****
- swap_72:
NumSamples = 100; Min = 53.00; Max = 71.00
Mean = 55.070000; Variance = 21.565100; SD = 4.643824; Median 53.000000
each * represents a count of 1
53.0000 - 54.8000 [ 73]: *************************************************************************
54.8000 - 56.6000 [ 9]: *********
56.6000 - 58.4000 [ 9]: *********
58.4000 - 60.2000 [ 0]:
60.2000 - 62.0000 [ 0]:
62.0000 - 63.8000 [ 0]:
63.8000 - 65.6000 [ 0]:
65.6000 - 67.4000 [ 1]: *
67.4000 - 69.2000 [ 4]: ****
69.2000 - 71.0000 [ 4]: ****
- test program:
static int cmp_32(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = *(u32 *)a;
u32 r = *(u32 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_64(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u64 l = *(u64 *)a;
u64 r = *(u64 *)b;
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static int cmp_72(const void *a, const void *b)
{
u32 l = get_unaligned((u32 *) a);
u32 r = get_unaligned((u32 *) b);
if (l < r)
return -1;
if (l > r)
return 1;
return 0;
}
static void init_array32(void *array)
{
u32 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array64(void *array)
{
u64 *a = array;
int i;
a[0] = 3821;
for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++)
a[i] = next_pseudo_random32(a[i-1]);
}
static void init_array72(void *array)
{
char *p;
u32 v;
int i;
v = 3821;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_ELEMENTS; i++) {
p = (char *)array + (i * 9);
put_unaligned(v, (u32*) p);
v = next_pseudo_random32(v);
}
}
static void sort_test(void (*init)(void *array),
int (*cmp) (const void *, const void *),
void *array, size_t size)
{
ktime_t start, stop;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
init(array);
local_irq_disable();
start = ktime_get();
sort(array, ARRAY_ELEMENTS, size, cmp, NULL);
stop = ktime_get();
local_irq_enable();
if (i > 10000 - 101)
pr_info("%lld\n", ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(stop, start)));
}
}
static void *create_array(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = kmalloc(ARRAY_ELEMENTS * size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!array)
return NULL;
return array;
}
static int perform_test(size_t size)
{
void *array;
array = create_array(size);
if (!array)
return -ENOMEM;
pr_info("test element size %d bytes\n", (int)size);
switch (size) {
case 4:
sort_test(init_array32, cmp_32, array, size);
break;
case 8:
sort_test(init_array64, cmp_64, array, size);
break;
case 9:
sort_test(init_array72, cmp_72, array, size);
break;
}
kfree(array);
return 0;
}
static int __init sort_tests_init(void)
{
int err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u32));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64));
if (err)
return err;
err = perform_test(sizeof(u64)+1);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
static void __exit sort_tests_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(sort_tests_init);
module_exit(sort_tests_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_AUTHOR("Daniel Wagner");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("sort perfomance tests");
Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2015-06-26 01:02:14 +03:00
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
/*
* Loop invariants :
* 1. elements [ a , n ) satisfy the heap property ( compare greater than
* all of their children ) ,
* 2. elements [ n , num * size ) are sorted , and
* 3. a < = b < = c < = d < = n ( whenever they are valid ) .
*/
for ( ; ; ) {
size_t b , c , d ;
if ( a ) /* Building heap: sift down --a */
a - = size ;
else if ( n - = size ) /* Sorting: Extract root to --n */
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
do_swap ( base , base + n , size , swap_func ) ;
lib/sort: use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant
This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (approaching half as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results; it
actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.
Specifically, it reduces the average number of compares from
2*n*log2(n) - 3*n + o(n)
to
n*log2(n) + 0.37*n + o(n).
This is still 1.63*n worse than glibc qsort() which manages n*log2(n) -
1.26*n, but at least the leading coefficient is correct.
Standard heapsort, when sifting down, performs two comparisons per
level: one to find the greater child, and a second to see if the current
node should be exchanged with that child.
Bottom-up heapsort observes that it's better to postpone the second
comparison and search for the leaf where -infinity would be sent to,
then search back *up* for the current node's destination.
Since sifting down usually proceeds to the leaf level (that's where half
the nodes are), this does O(1) second comparisons rather than log2(n).
That saves a lot of (expensive since Spectre) indirect function calls.
The one time it's worse than the previous code is if there are large
numbers of duplicate keys, when the top-down algorithm is O(n) and
bottom-up is O(n log n). For distinct keys, it's provably always
better, doing 1.5*n*log2(n) + O(n) in the worst case.
(The code is not significantly more complex. This patch also merges the
heap-building and -extracting sift-down loops, resulting in a net code
size savings.)
x86-64 code size 885 -> 767 bytes (-118)
(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)". The
alternative is significantly uglier.)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/2de8348635a1a421a72620677898c7fd5bd4b19d.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org
Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-15 01:42:52 +03:00
else /* Sort complete */
break ;
/*
* Sift element at " a " down into heap . This is the
* " bottom-up " variant , which significantly reduces
* calls to cmp_func ( ) : we find the sift - down path all
* the way to the leaves ( one compare per level ) , then
* backtrack to find where to insert the target element .
*
* Because elements tend to sift down close to the leaves ,
* this uses fewer compares than doing two per level
* on the way down . ( A bit more than half as many on
* average , 3 / 4 worst - case . )
*/
for ( b = a ; c = 2 * b + size , ( d = c + size ) < n ; )
b = cmp_func ( base + c , base + d ) > = 0 ? c : d ;
if ( d = = n ) /* Special case last leaf with no sibling */
b = c ;
/* Now backtrack from "b" to the correct location for "a" */
while ( b ! = a & & cmp_func ( base + a , base + b ) > = 0 )
b = parent ( b , lsbit , size ) ;
c = b ; /* Where "a" belongs */
while ( b ! = a ) { /* Shift it into place */
b = parent ( b , lsbit , size ) ;
2019-05-15 01:42:55 +03:00
do_swap ( base + b , base + c , size , swap_func ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL ( sort ) ;