linux-kernel - Generic Red-Black Trees: preliminary performance results

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FFBFCA9.2060307@att.net>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:58:01 -0500
From:	Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@....net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Generic Red-Black Trees: preliminary performance results

I've completed some rudimentary test code.  It is designed to compile
both in user & kernel space but only currently compiles in userland.  I
ran this on 9 different versions of gcc, all on x86_64 with CFLAGS="-O2
-g3 -pipe -march=k8".  The below summary data shows the % increase in
time consumed (decrease in performance) using my generic red-black trees
over hand-coded functions for insertion.

gcc ver  % decrease in speed
4.7.1       -5.39%
4.6.2        2.60%
4.5.3       18.07%
4.4.6       20.52%
4.3.6       13.53%
4.2.4       11.84%
4.1.2       16.36%
4.0.4       35.70%
3.4.6       47.28%

I don't understand why the generic code ran faster than hand-coded on
gcc 4.7.1 as I haven't examined the assembly output yet.  However, I'm
pretty certain I understand why it was 2% slower on 4.6.  This has to do
with an optimization flaw.  In the hand-coded insert/find functions, I
used  the "if (a->key > b->key) .. else if (a->key < b->key)" construct,
where as the generic code calculates a diff and compares that against
zero and 4.6.2 is adding an unnecessary cmp instruction:

 3f2:   8b 48 18                mov    0x18(%rax),%ecx
 3f5:   8b 7a 18                mov    0x18(%rdx),%edi
 3f8:   48 29 f9                sub    %rdi,%rcx
 3fb:   48 83 f9 00             cmp    $0x0,%rcx
 3ff:   7f df                   jg     3e0 <grbtest_insert+0xb0>
 401:   0f 84 c9 00 00 00       je     4d0 <grbtest_insert+0x1a0>

The test configuration was for a tree that tracks both leftmost,
rightmost and count and uses unique keys where the insert function
replaces an existing object. These tests weren't ideal.  While I
allocated 4096 objects (32 bytes each) to stick in my tree, I used 0xff
for a key mask, so only 256 object would be in the tree at once and I
didn't notice this until I was most of the way through the tests.  My
intention was to run the test with a data set small enough to fit into
the L3 cache, so as to reduce overhead from memory access and isolate
the actual differences in the algorithm.

When I get this all cleaned up, I'll release another patch set with the
test code added.  (This also automates correctness tests for find,
insert, find_near and insert_near). Also, I'm going to experiment with
branch prediction to see if I can squeeze a little more performance out
of the older compilers.

Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/