Message-ID: <20140117042901.GB26022@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jan 2014 05:29:01 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@...kjames.pl>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] reciprocal_divide: correction/update of the algorithm

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:33:37PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 01:28 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Jakub Zawadzki noticed that some divisions by reciprocal_divide()
> > were not correct [1][2], which he could also show with BPF code after
> > divisions are transformed into reciprocal_value() for runtime invariant
> > which can be passed to reciprocal_divide() later on; reverse in BPF dump
> > ended up with a different, off-by-one K.
> > 
> > This has been fixed by Eric Dumazet in commit aee636c4809fa5 ("bpf: do not
> > use reciprocal divide"). This follow-up patch improves reciprocal_value()
> > and reciprocal_divide() to work in all cases, so future use is safe.
> > 
> > Known problems with the old implementation were that division by 1 always
> > returned 0 and some off-by-ones when the dividend and divisor where
> > very large.  This seemed to not be problematic with its current users
> > in networking, mm/slab.c and lib/flex_array.c, but future users would
> > need to check for this specifically and it might not be obvious at first.
> > 
> > In order to fix that, we propose an extension from the original
> > implementation from commit 6a2d7a955d8d resp. [3][4], by using
> > the algorithm proposed in "Division by Invariant Integers Using
> > Multiplication" [5], Torbjörn Granlund and Peter L. Montgomery, that is,
> > pseudocode for q = n/d where q,n,d is in u32 universe:
> > 
> > 1) Initialization:
> > 
> >   int l = ceil(log_2 d)
> >   uword m' = floor((1<<32)*((1<<l)-d)/d)+1
> >   int sh_1 = min(l,1)
> >   int sh_2 = max(l-1,0)
> > 
> > 2) For q = n/d, all uword:
> > 
> >   uword t = (n*m')>>32
> >   q = (t+((n-t)>>sh_1))>>sh_2
> > 
> > The assembler implementation from Agner Fog [6] also helped a lot
> > while implementing. We have tested the implementation on x86_64,
> > ppc64, i686, s390x; on x86_64/haswell we're still half the latency
> > compared to normal divide.
> > 
> > Joint work with Daniel Borkmann.
> > 
> >   [1] http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/reciprocal-buggy.c
> >   [2] http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/set-and-dump-filter-k-bug.c
> >   [3] https://gmplib.org/~tege/division-paper.pdf
> >   [4] http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/bcd/divide.html
> >   [5] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1.2556
> >   [6] http://www.agner.org/optimize/asmlib.zip
> > 
> > Fixes: 6a2d7a955d8d ("SLAB: use a multiply instead of a divide in obj_to_index()")
> 
> 
> I already demonstrated this slab patch was fine.
> 
> The current algo works well (no off-by-one error) when the dividend is
> a multiple of the divisor.

Sure, so did we state in the commit message.

> You are adding extra overhead, while we know its not necessary.
> 
> By using "Fixes: ... " you are asking a backport to stable branches,
> which seems really silly in this case, especially with this monolithic
> patch changing 12 files in different subsystems.

We can drop the the Fixes tags, no problem.

> If you believe flex_array has a problem, please fix flex_array only,
> by a small patch (Maybe a revert ?)

I really doubt it is helpful to have an implementation of reciprocal_divide
which has some known (and maybe unkown) problems in the long term.

This implementation still has an performance benefit compared to regular
division while calculating correct results in any case.

We clearly didn't intend stable inclusion, in fact this patch has been posted
for net-next inclusion as an improvment and not as a bugfix. The Fixes tags
where just lingering on this patch from my first attempt where the situation
was not that clear (at least for me).

Also I doubt the performance drop for SLAB will be that massive. Also it was
already replaced by SLUB as the default SLAB allocator, which doesn't use
reciprocal_divide.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists