linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optimize number of comparisons for heap/heapsort implementaion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Za6Wj1730cqvoYaQ@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:23:43 +0800
From: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: colyli@...e.de, bfoster@...hat.com, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Optimize number of comparisons for heap/heapsort
 implementaion

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:06:39AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:06:54PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:41:55PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:55:51AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 11:21:06AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 11:36:44PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The existing implementations of heap/heapsort follow the conventional
> > > > > > textbook approach, where each heapify operation requires approximately
> > > > > > 2*log2(n) comparisons. In this series, I introduce a bottom-up variant
> > > > > > that reduces the number of comparisons during heapify operations to
> > > > > > approximately log2(n), while maintaining the same number of swap
> > > > > > operations.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Kuan-Wei
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Kuan-Wei Chiu (5):
> > > > > >   bcachefs: Optimize eytzinger0_sort() using bottom-up heapsort
> > > > > >   bcachefs: Introduce parent function for sort_cmp_size()
> > > > > >   bcachefs: Optimize sort_cmp_size() using bottom-up heapsort
> > > > > >   bcachefs: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift_down
> > > > > >   bcache: Optimize number of comparisons in heap_sift
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  drivers/md/bcache/util.h |  23 +++++----
> > > > > >  fs/bcachefs/util.c       | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > > >  fs/bcachefs/util.h       |  23 +++++----
> > > > > >  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good stuff
> > > > > 
> > > > > While we're looking at this code, we should be doing some cleanup too -
> > > > > there's no reason for the heap code to be duplicated in bcache and
> > > > > bcachefs anymore, and it'd also be nice to get fs/bcachefs/eytzinger.h
> > > > > moved to include/linux and bcache converted to use it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I also would not be surprised if there's another heap implementation in
> > > > > include/linux; we'll want to check for that and if there is decide which
> > > > > is worth keeping.
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, we have 'min_heap.h' in include/linux.
> > > 
> > > So that has the advantage of more readable code - functions instead of
> > > macros - whereas my version has the type safe interface.
> > > 
> > > We could combine the two approaches, and put a type-safe interface on
> > > top of the min_heap.h code with some small macro wrappers - see
> > > generic-radix-tree.h for an example of how that's done.
> > 
> > Without modifying the interface provided by min_heap.h, it seems
> > challenging to implement the functionality of heap_add due to the
> > relationship with heap_setbackpointer.
> 
> min_heap.h has the same functionality, different interface - updating
> the callers for an interface change is fine.
>
OK, I'll take some time to do these cleanups.
> > 
> > Additionally, when looking into the code in generic-radix-tree.h,
> > should we replace type[0] with type[]? This is because zero-length
> > arrays are deprecated language features mentioned in document [1].
> 
> Zero length arrays are deprecated as VLAs, but this isn't a VLA - we're
> not storing anything there, the variable is just so that macros have
> access to the type.
> 
> > Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays [1]
> > > 
> > > min_heap.h has only one user though? I don't think I can quite believe
> > > that's the only other code in the kernel using a heap, there must be
> > > more open coded out there...
> > 
> > I'm not sure why, but it seems that in the kernel, other places using
> > the heap implement their own subsystem-specific solutions rather than
> > utilizing a generic heap interface. For instance,
> > kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c and net/sched/sch_cake.c both have their own
> > implementations.
> 
> Sounds like a fun cleanup project :)