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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <dbac34c6052fc973fb55df4966981bae24c7cce9.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:21:42 +0000
From:   George Spelvin <lkml@....org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     George Spelvin <lkml@....org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Abramov <st5pub@...dex.ru>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...mens.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Don Mullis <don.mullis@...il.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] lib/sort: Use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant

This uses fewer comparisons than the previous code (61% as
many for large random inputs), but produces identical results;
it actually performs the exact same series of swap operations.

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 many fewer second comparisons.  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.

(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 -> 770 bytes (-115)

(I see the checkpatch complaint about "else if (n -= size)".
The alternative is significantly uglier.)

Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@....org>
---
 lib/sort.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/sort.c b/lib/sort.c
index dff2ab2e196e..2aef4631e7d3 100644
--- a/lib/sort.c
+++ b/lib/sort.c
@@ -117,6 +117,32 @@ static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
 	} while (n);
 }
 
+/**
+ * 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;
+}
+
 /**
  * sort - sort an array of elements
  * @base: pointer to data to sort
@@ -125,21 +151,26 @@ static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
  * @cmp_func: pointer to comparison function
  * @swap_func: pointer to swap function or NULL
  *
- * This function does a heapsort on the given array. You may provide a
- * swap_func function optimized to your element type.
+ * 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 isn't
+ * usually a bottleneck.
  *
  * Sorting time is O(n log n) both on average and worst-case. While
  * qsort is about 20% faster on average, it suffers from exploitable
  * 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,
 	  int (*cmp_func)(const void *, const void *),
 	  void (*swap_func)(void *, void *, int size))
 {
 	/* pre-scale counters for performance */
-	int i = (num/2 - 1) * size, n = num * size, c, r;
+	size_t n = num * size, a = (num/2) * size;
+	unsigned const lsbit = size & -size;	/* Used to find parent */
+
+	if (!n)
+		return;
 
 	if (!swap_func) {
 		if (alignment_ok(base, size, 8))
@@ -150,30 +181,47 @@ void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t size,
 			swap_func = generic_swap;
 	}
 
-	/* heapify */
-	for ( ; i >= 0; i -= size) {
-		for (r = i; r * 2 + size < n; r  = c) {
-			c = r * 2 + size;
-			if (c < n - size &&
-					cmp_func(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
-				c += size;
-			if (cmp_func(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
-				break;
-			swap_func(base + r, base + c, size);
-		}
-	}
+	/*
+	 * 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;
 
-	/* sort */
-	for (i = n - size; i > 0; i -= size) {
-		swap_func(base, base + i, size);
-		for (r = 0; r * 2 + size < i; r = c) {
-			c = r * 2 + size;
-			if (c < i - size &&
-					cmp_func(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
-				c += size;
-			if (cmp_func(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
-				break;
-			swap_func(base + r, base + c, size);
+		if (a)			/* Building heap: sift down --a */
+			a -= size;
+		else if (n -= size)	/* Sorting: Extract root to --n */
+			swap_func(base, base + n, size);
+		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);
+			swap_func(base + b, base + c, size);
 		}
 	}
 }
-- 
2.20.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ