[PATCH v3 3/7] stdlib: Optimization qsort{_r} swap implementation (BZ #19305)
Noah Goldstein
goldstein.w.n@gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 03:39:50 GMT 2021
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:29 PM Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:14 PM Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <
> libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
>> It optimizes take in consideration both the most common elements are
>> either 32 or 64 bit in size [1] and inputs are aligned to the word
>> boundary. This is similar to the optimization done on lib/sort.c
>> from Linux.
>>
>> This patchs adds an optimized swap operation on qsort based in previous
>> msort one. Instead of byte operation, three variants are provided:
>>
>> 1. Using uint32_t loads and stores.
>> 2. Using uint64_t loads and stores.
>> 3. Generic one with a temporary buffer and memcpy/mempcpy.
>>
>> The 1. and 2. options are selected only either if architecture defines
>> _STRING_ARCH_unaligned or if base pointer is aligned to required type.
>>
>> It also fixes BZ#19305 by checking input size against number of
>> elements 1 besides 0.
>>
>> Checked on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>>
>> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2018-August/096984.html
>> ---
>> stdlib/qsort.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/stdlib/qsort.c b/stdlib/qsort.c
>> index 23f2d28314..59458d151b 100644
>> --- a/stdlib/qsort.c
>> +++ b/stdlib/qsort.c
>> @@ -24,20 +24,85 @@
>> #include <limits.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> +#include <stdbool.h>
>>
>> -/* Byte-wise swap two items of size SIZE. */
>> -#define SWAP(a, b, size)
>> \
>> - do
>> \
>> - {
>> \
>> - size_t __size = (size);
>> \
>> - char *__a = (a), *__b = (b);
>> \
>> - do
>> \
>> - {
>> \
>> - char __tmp = *__a;
>> \
>> - *__a++ = *__b;
>> \
>> - *__b++ = __tmp;
>> \
>> - } while (--__size > 0);
>> \
>> - } while (0)
>> +/* Swap SIZE bytes between addresses A and B. These helpers are provided
>> + along the generic one as an optimization. */
>> +
>> +typedef void (*swap_func_t)(void * restrict, void * restrict, size_t);
>> +
>> +/* Return trues is elements can be copied used word load and sortes.
>> + The size must be a multiple of the alignment, and the base address.
>> */
>> +static inline bool
>> +is_aligned_to_copy (const void *base, size_t size, size_t align)
>> +{
>> + unsigned char lsbits = size;
>> +#if !_STRING_ARCH_unaligned
>> + lsbits |= (unsigned char)(uintptr_t) base;
>> +#endif
>> + return (lsbits & (align - 1)) == 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define SWAP_WORDS_64 (swap_func_t)0
>> +#define SWAP_WORDS_32 (swap_func_t)1
>> +#define SWAP_BYTES (swap_func_t)2
>> +
>> +static void
>> +swap_words_64 (void * restrict a, void * restrict b, size_t n)
>> +{
>> + do
>> + {
>> + n -= 8;
>> + uint64_t t = *(uint64_t *)(a + n);
>> + *(uint64_t *)(a + n) = *(uint64_t *)(b + n);
>> + *(uint64_t *)(b + n) = t;
>> + } while (n);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> +swap_words_32 (void * restrict a, void * restrict b, size_t n)
>> +{
>> + do
>> + {
>> + n -= 4;
>> + uint32_t t = *(uint32_t *)(a + n);
>> + *(uint32_t *)(a + n) = *(uint32_t *)(b + n);
>> + *(uint32_t *)(b + n) = t;
>> + } while (n);
>> +}
>>
>
I'm not certain swap_words_32 / swap_words_8 will be optimal for larger
key sizes. Looking at GCC's implementation of swap_generic on modern
x86_64:
https://godbolt.org/z/638h3Y9va
It's able to optimize the temporary buffer out of the loop and use xmm
registers which
will likely win out for larger sizes.
> +
>> +static void
>> +swap_bytes (void * restrict a, void * restrict b, size_t n)
>> +{
>> + /* Use multiple small memcpys with constant size to enable inlining
>> + on most targets. */
>> + enum { SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE = 32 };
>> + unsigned char tmp[SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE];
>> + while (n > SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE)
>> + {
>> + memcpy (tmp, a, SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE);
>> + a = memcpy (a, b, SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE) + SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE;
>> + b = memcpy (b, tmp, SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE) + SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE;
>> + n -= SWAP_GENERIC_SIZE;
>> + }
>> + memcpy (tmp, a, n);
>> + memcpy (a, b, n);
>> + memcpy (b, tmp, n);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Replace the indirect call with a serie of if statements. It should
>> help
>> + the branch predictor. */
>>
>
> 1) Really? On Intel at least an indirect call that is always going to the
> same place
> is certainly going to be predicted as well if not better than 2/3
> branches + direct call.
>
> 2) If you're going to just test which swap function to use, why
> bother initializing
> swap_func? Why not just use an int?
>
>
>
>> +static void
>> +do_swap (void * restrict a, void * restrict 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
>> + swap_bytes (a, b, size);
>> +}
>>
>> /* Discontinue quicksort algorithm when partition gets below this size.
>> This particular magic number was chosen to work best on a Sun 4/260.
>> */
>> @@ -97,6 +162,14 @@ _quicksort (void *const pbase, size_t total_elems,
>> size_t size,
>> /* Avoid lossage with unsigned arithmetic below. */
>> return;
>>
>> + swap_func_t swap_func;
>> + if (is_aligned_to_copy (pbase, size, 8))
>> + swap_func = SWAP_WORDS_64;
>> + else if (is_aligned_to_copy (pbase, size, 4))
>>
>
For many modern architectures that support fast unaligned loads/stores
(for example x86_64 SnB and newer) I don't think this check really makes
sense.
> + swap_func = SWAP_WORDS_32;
>> + else
>> + swap_func = SWAP_BYTES;
>> +
>> if (total_elems > MAX_THRESH)
>> {
>> char *lo = base_ptr;
>> @@ -120,13 +193,13 @@ _quicksort (void *const pbase, size_t total_elems,
>> size_t size,
>> char *mid = lo + size * ((hi - lo) / size >> 1);
>>
>> if ((*cmp) ((void *) mid, (void *) lo, arg) < 0)
>> - SWAP (mid, lo, size);
>> + do_swap (mid, lo, size, swap_func);
>> if ((*cmp) ((void *) hi, (void *) mid, arg) < 0)
>> - SWAP (mid, hi, size);
>> + do_swap (mid, hi, size, swap_func);
>> else
>> goto jump_over;
>> if ((*cmp) ((void *) mid, (void *) lo, arg) < 0)
>> - SWAP (mid, lo, size);
>> + do_swap (mid, lo, size, swap_func);
>> jump_over:;
>>
>> left_ptr = lo + size;
>> @@ -145,7 +218,7 @@ _quicksort (void *const pbase, size_t total_elems,
>> size_t size,
>>
>> if (left_ptr < right_ptr)
>> {
>> - SWAP (left_ptr, right_ptr, size);
>> + do_swap (left_ptr, right_ptr, size, swap_func);
>> if (mid == left_ptr)
>> mid = right_ptr;
>> else if (mid == right_ptr)
>> @@ -217,7 +290,7 @@ _quicksort (void *const pbase, size_t total_elems,
>> size_t size,
>> tmp_ptr = run_ptr;
>>
>> if (tmp_ptr != base_ptr)
>> - SWAP (tmp_ptr, base_ptr, size);
>> + do_swap (tmp_ptr, base_ptr, size, swap_func);
>>
>> /* Insertion sort, running from left-hand-side up to
>> right-hand-side. */
>>
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>
>>
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list