search

tukaani-project / xz

XZ Utils
https://tukaani.org/xz/
Other
625 stars 116 forks source link

Replaced crc64_fast constructor with ifunc #53

Closed hansjans162 closed 1 year ago

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

The ifunc attribute is a cleaner and marginally more performant mechanism for dynamically choosing a routine at runtime.

The PR contains two parts:

  1. The first replaces the crc64 construct with the ifunc resolver.
  2. The second modifies the build process to account for the ifunc attribute.

HAVE_FUNC_ATTRIBUTE_IFUNC is set if ifuncs can be built on the system. glibc has supported ifunc since version 2.11 (2009). Building for older machines may want to manually disable ifunc support when building. --disable-ifunc can be used with autotools and USE_ATTR_IFUNC=OFF can be used with CMake to disable the check for ifunc support. USE_ATTR_IFUNC defaults to ON for CMake and enable_ifunc defaults to yes for autotools.

More about ifuncs can be read here or here.

Pull request checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

What is the current behavior?

crc64_fast currently uses the __attribute__ constructor to choose the crc implementation to use.

What is the new behavior?

I replaced the __attribute__((__constructor__)) with __attribute__((ifunc())) in crc64_fast.c

Does this introduce a breaking change?

Functionality should be identical.

Other information

JiaT75 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the PR and the helpful links! Overall this seems like a nice improvement to our function picking strategy for CRC64. It will likely be useful when we implement CRC32 CLMUL too :)

I want to do a bit more research about the GNU indirect functions to make its right for this project before we decide to merge. Before that, there are a few style changes that need to be made. I will comment them separately.

Larhzu commented 1 year ago

My understanding is that ifunc is specific to glibc. __constructor__ works on many ELF platforms, not just GNU/Linux.

According to your link, ifunc is incompatible with -fsanitize=address. And indeed it makes make check fail with segfaults. (I also see that two tests fail with -fsanitize=address before your patch due to memory leaks but no segfaults.)

Also, checking for __cplusplus isn't needed as this is C code and not a public header.

How much difference (speed or memory or anything else) does ifunc make in this specific use case? I understand that the function pointer is an extra step on each call but the function itself is more expensive than memcpy or such which get called a lot with tiny buffers. Currently I feel the extra complication isn't worth it in liblzma as __constructor__ is good to keep around too for ELF platforms that lack ifunc support.

Thanks!

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the feedback!

I could make the selection method a three tiered approach where ifunc is preferred, followed by the __constructor__, and followed again by the generic method. This way the behavior would remain unchanged on non-GNU/Linux systems. Yes, if -fsantize=address is set then you would want to set --disable-ifunc.

The performance improvements are helpful if crc64 is called a large amount, e.g. for a large number of small files or a multi-threaded file with many blocks. I'm using the crc64 function a very large amount by itself since I noticed it is very fast for checksumming since the CLMUL update. There is also some benefit with branch prediction and it gave me one less instruction when I compiled it with GCC. Your right though, I was hoping to look into additional optimizations after this one.

In regards to __cplusplus I wasn't sure if liblzma was being compiled with a C++ compiler anywhere. I can remove it if you don't think it's useful.

Larhzu commented 1 year ago

I understand that ifunc avoids loading a function pointer and an indirect branch. liblzma uses function pointers a lot so, for (de)compression performance, avoiding one pointer in the call stack likely doesn't matter (but I haven't benchmarked it). Many lzma_crc64 calls can process a few kilobytes of data per call but I understand that in non-compression uses tiny buffers may be the most common.

How big difference in speed does your patch make with your code? I would like understand the real-world improvement that ifunc can make specifically with lzma_crc64.

In regards to __cplusplus I wasn't sure if liblzma was being compiled with a C++ compiler anywhere. I can remove it if you don't think it's useful.

C++ compiler isn't used so the check should be removed.

By the way, have you checked xxhash if you need a very fast hash?

Thanks!

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

I have a large number of varying buffer sizes. With the larger buffers it doesn't make much of a difference, but with the smaller ~64B to ~256B buffers I was noticing a 4-5% improvement. I'm also running all of this on older hardware which may be contributing to the speedup. I benchmarked it for the standard .xz case, however the speedup there was within the bounds of being noise.

liblzma works well since it's already present, and we're also locked into the existing checksums.

Larhzu commented 1 year ago

4-5 % isn't a huge difference but it's around the threshold where it becomes interesting. Jia and I discussed this and ifunc support is welcome while keeping the constructor attribute as the second choice. Thanks!

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

I made all of the requested fixes. Let me know if there are any other concerns.

Larhzu commented 1 year ago

When fixing commits in a patchset / pull request, it usually should be done by editing the original commits instead of adding fix-up commits at the end. For example, in this case the commits first remove a feature and then add it back. This makes it harder to see what changes were actually made in the end. This applies to both reviewing the changes before the merge and to people who read xz's commit log afterwards. I think this should be fixed.

Thanks!

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the advice. I made the requested change. I rebased the git commits and updated the commit messages.

Larhzu commented 1 year ago

Using ifunc for a static crc64_func means that lzma_crc64 becomes a single-instruction function that just does a jump via PLT:

jmp    45a0 <*ABS*+0x15e00@plt>

I suppose it's better to make lzma_crc64 itself the ifunc. This has been done in v2 branch. Can you test it and tell if you notice any difference (speed or anything else) compared to your version. Thanks!

hansjans162 commented 1 year ago

I ran it and it looks good. The performance seems to be a little bit better. I didn't notice any other differences. Thanks for taking the time to review everything.

JiaT75 commented 1 year ago

@hansjans162 Just merged from the other branch Thanks for your contribution!

rashadgasimli commented 7 months ago

wtf