linux/lib/list_sort.c

254 lines
8.2 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license. By default all files without license information are under the default license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2. Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0' SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text. This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and Philippe Ombredanne. How this work was done: Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of the use cases: - file had no licensing information it it. - file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it, - file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information, Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords. The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files. The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s) to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation. Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was: - Files considered eligible had to be source code files. - Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5 lines of source - File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5 lines). All documentation files were explicitly excluded. The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license identifiers to apply. - when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was considered to have no license information in it, and the top level COPYING file license applied. For non */uapi/* files that summary was: SPDX license identifier # files ---------------------------------------------------|------- GPL-2.0 11139 and resulted in the first patch in this series. If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was: SPDX license identifier # files ---------------------------------------------------|------- GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930 and resulted in the second patch in this series. - if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in it (per prior point). Results summary: SPDX license identifier # files ---------------------------------------------------|------ GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270 GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169 ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21 ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17 LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15 GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14 ((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5 LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4 LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3 ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3 ((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1 and that resulted in the third patch in this series. - when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became the concluded license(s). - when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a license but the other didn't, or they both detected different licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred. - In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics). - When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation. - If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier, the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later in time. In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation. Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so they are related. Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks in about 15000 files. In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the correct identifier. Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch version early this week with: - a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected license ids and scores - reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+ files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct - reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the different types of files to be modified. These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to generate the patches. Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 14:07:57 +00:00
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/string.h>
#include <linux/list_sort.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
/*
* Returns a list organized in an intermediate format suited
* to chaining of merge() calls: null-terminated, no reserved or
* sentinel head node, "prev" links not maintained.
*/
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4)))
static struct list_head *merge(void *priv, list_cmp_func_t cmp,
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b)
{
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
struct list_head *head, **tail = &head;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
for (;;) {
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
/* if equal, take 'a' -- important for sort stability */
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (cmp(priv, a, b) <= 0) {
*tail = a;
tail = &a->next;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
a = a->next;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (!a) {
*tail = b;
break;
}
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
} else {
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
*tail = b;
tail = &b->next;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
b = b->next;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (!b) {
*tail = a;
break;
}
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
}
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
return head;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
/*
* Combine final list merge with restoration of standard doubly-linked
* list structure. This approach duplicates code from merge(), but
* runs faster than the tidier alternatives of either a separate final
* prev-link restoration pass, or maintaining the prev links
* throughout.
*/
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))
static void merge_final(void *priv, list_cmp_func_t cmp, struct list_head *head,
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
struct list_head *a, struct list_head *b)
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
{
struct list_head *tail = head;
u8 count = 0;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
for (;;) {
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
/* if equal, take 'a' -- important for sort stability */
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (cmp(priv, a, b) <= 0) {
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
tail->next = a;
a->prev = tail;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
tail = a;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
a = a->next;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (!a)
break;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
} else {
tail->next = b;
b->prev = tail;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
tail = b;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
b = b->next;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (!b) {
b = a;
break;
}
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
}
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
/* Finish linking remainder of list b on to tail */
tail->next = b;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
do {
/*
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
* If the merge is highly unbalanced (e.g. the input is
* already sorted), this loop may run many iterations.
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
* Continue callbacks to the client even though no
* element comparison is needed, so the client's cmp()
* routine can invoke cond_resched() periodically.
*/
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (unlikely(!++count))
cmp(priv, b, b);
b->prev = tail;
tail = b;
b = b->next;
} while (b);
/* And the final links to make a circular doubly-linked list */
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
tail->next = head;
head->prev = tail;
}
/**
* list_sort - sort a list
* @priv: private data, opaque to list_sort(), passed to @cmp
* @head: the list to sort
* @cmp: the elements comparison function
*
* The comparison function @cmp must return > 0 if @a should sort after
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
* @b ("@a > @b" if you want an ascending sort), and <= 0 if @a should
* sort before @b *or* their original order should be preserved. It is
* always called with the element that came first in the input in @a,
* and list_sort is a stable sort, so it is not necessary to distinguish
* the @a < @b and @a == @b cases.
*
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
* This is compatible with two styles of @cmp function:
* - The traditional style which returns <0 / =0 / >0, or
* - Returning a boolean 0/1.
* The latter offers a chance to save a few cycles in the comparison
* (which is used by e.g. plug_ctx_cmp() in block/blk-mq.c).
*
* A good way to write a multi-word comparison is::
*
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
* if (a->high != b->high)
* return a->high > b->high;
* if (a->middle != b->middle)
* return a->middle > b->middle;
* return a->low > b->low;
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
*
*
* This mergesort is as eager as possible while always performing at least
* 2:1 balanced merges. Given two pending sublists of size 2^k, they are
* merged to a size-2^(k+1) list as soon as we have 2^k following elements.
*
* Thus, it will avoid cache thrashing as long as 3*2^k elements can
* fit into the cache. Not quite as good as a fully-eager bottom-up
* mergesort, but it does use 0.2*n fewer comparisons, so is faster in
* the common case that everything fits into L1.
*
*
* The merging is controlled by "count", the number of elements in the
* pending lists. This is beautifully simple code, but rather subtle.
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
*
* Each time we increment "count", we set one bit (bit k) and clear
* bits k-1 .. 0. Each time this happens (except the very first time
* for each bit, when count increments to 2^k), we merge two lists of
* size 2^k into one list of size 2^(k+1).
*
* This merge happens exactly when the count reaches an odd multiple of
* 2^k, which is when we have 2^k elements pending in smaller lists,
* so it's safe to merge away two lists of size 2^k.
*
* After this happens twice, we have created two lists of size 2^(k+1),
* which will be merged into a list of size 2^(k+2) before we create
* a third list of size 2^(k+1), so there are never more than two pending.
*
* The number of pending lists of size 2^k is determined by the
* state of bit k of "count" plus two extra pieces of information:
*
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
* - The state of bit k-1 (when k == 0, consider bit -1 always set), and
* - Whether the higher-order bits are zero or non-zero (i.e.
* is count >= 2^(k+1)).
*
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
* There are six states we distinguish. "x" represents some arbitrary
* bits, and "y" represents some arbitrary non-zero bits:
* 0: 00x: 0 pending of size 2^k; x pending of sizes < 2^k
* 1: 01x: 0 pending of size 2^k; 2^(k-1) + x pending of sizes < 2^k
* 2: x10x: 0 pending of size 2^k; 2^k + x pending of sizes < 2^k
* 3: x11x: 1 pending of size 2^k; 2^(k-1) + x pending of sizes < 2^k
* 4: y00x: 1 pending of size 2^k; 2^k + x pending of sizes < 2^k
* 5: y01x: 2 pending of size 2^k; 2^(k-1) + x pending of sizes < 2^k
* (merge and loop back to state 2)
*
* We gain lists of size 2^k in the 2->3 and 4->5 transitions (because
* bit k-1 is set while the more significant bits are non-zero) and
* merge them away in the 5->2 transition. Note in particular that just
* before the 5->2 transition, all lower-order bits are 11 (state 3),
* so there is one list of each smaller size.
*
* When we reach the end of the input, we merge all the pending
* lists, from smallest to largest. If you work through cases 2 to
* 5 above, you can see that the number of elements we merge with a list
* of size 2^k varies from 2^(k-1) (cases 3 and 5 when x == 0) to
* 2^(k+1) - 1 (second merge of case 5 when x == 2^(k-1) - 1).
*/
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
__attribute__((nonnull(2,3)))
void list_sort(void *priv, struct list_head *head, list_cmp_func_t cmp)
{
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
struct list_head *list = head->next, *pending = NULL;
size_t count = 0; /* Count of pending */
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
if (list == head->prev) /* Zero or one elements */
return;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
/* Convert to a null-terminated singly-linked list. */
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
head->prev->next = NULL;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
/*
* Data structure invariants:
* - All lists are singly linked and null-terminated; prev
* pointers are not maintained.
* - pending is a prev-linked "list of lists" of sorted
* sublists awaiting further merging.
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
* - Each of the sorted sublists is power-of-two in size.
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
* - Sublists are sorted by size and age, smallest & newest at front.
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
* - There are zero to two sublists of each size.
* - A pair of pending sublists are merged as soon as the number
* of following pending elements equals their size (i.e.
* each time count reaches an odd multiple of that size).
* That ensures each later final merge will be at worst 2:1.
* - Each round consists of:
* - Merging the two sublists selected by the highest bit
* which flips when count is incremented, and
* - Adding an element from the input as a size-1 sublist.
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
*/
do {
size_t bits;
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
struct list_head **tail = &pending;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
/* Find the least-significant clear bit in count */
for (bits = count; bits & 1; bits >>= 1)
tail = &(*tail)->prev;
/* Do the indicated merge */
if (likely(bits)) {
struct list_head *a = *tail, *b = a->prev;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
a = merge(priv, cmp, b, a);
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
/* Install the merged result in place of the inputs */
a->prev = b->prev;
*tail = a;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
/* Move one element from input list to pending */
list->prev = pending;
pending = list;
list = list->next;
pending->next = NULL;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
count++;
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
} while (list);
/* End of input; merge together all the pending lists. */
list = pending;
pending = pending->prev;
for (;;) {
struct list_head *next = pending->prev;
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
if (!next)
break;
list = merge(priv, cmp, pending, list);
lib/list_sort: optimize number of calls to comparison function CONFIG_RETPOLINE has severely degraded indirect function call performance, so it's worth putting some effort into reducing the number of times cmp() is called. This patch avoids badly unbalanced merges on unlucky input sizes. It slightly increases the code size, but saves an average of 0.2*n calls to cmp(). x86-64 code size 739 -> 803 bytes (+64) Unfortunately, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit in a merge sort; it already performs only n*log2(n) - K*n + O(1) compares. The leading coefficient is already at the theoretical limit (log2(n!) corresponds to K=1.4427), so we're fighting over the linear term, and the best mergesort can do is K=1.2645, achieved when n is a power of 2. The differences between mergesort variants appear when n is *not* a power of 2; K is a function of the fractional part of log2(n). Top-down mergesort does best of all, achieving a minimum K=1.2408, and an average (over all sizes) K=1.248. However, that requires knowing the number of entries to be sorted ahead of time, and making a full pass over the input to count it conflicts with a second performance goal, which is cache blocking. Obviously, we have to read the entire list into L1 cache at some point, and performance is best if it fits. But if it doesn't fit, each full pass over the input causes a cache miss per element, which is undesirable. While textbooks explain bottom-up mergesort as a succession of merging passes, practical implementations do merging in depth-first order: as soon as two lists of the same size are available, they are merged. This allows as many merge passes as possible to fit into L1; only the final few merges force cache misses. This cache-friendly depth-first merge order depends on us merging the beginning of the input as much as possible before we've even seen the end of the input (and thus know its size). The simple eager merge pattern causes bad performance when n is just over a power of 2. If n=1028, the final merge is between 1024- and 4-element lists, which is wasteful of comparisons. (This is actually worse on average than n=1025, because a 1204:1 merge will, on average, end after 512 compares, while 1024:4 will walk 4/5 of the list.) Because of this, bottom-up mergesort achieves K < 0.5 for such sizes, and has an average (over all sizes) K of around 1. (My experiments show K=1.01, while theory predicts K=0.965.) There are "worst-case optimal" variants of bottom-up mergesort which avoid this bad performance, but the algorithms given in the literature, such as queue-mergesort and boustrodephonic mergesort, depend on the breadth-first multi-pass structure that we are trying to avoid. This implementation is as eager as possible while ensuring that all merge passes are at worst 1:2 unbalanced. This achieves the same average K=1.207 as queue-mergesort, which is 0.2*n better then bottom-up, and only 0.04*n behind top-down mergesort. Specifically, defers merging two lists of size 2^k until it is known that there are 2^k additional inputs following. This ensures that the final uneven merges triggered by reaching the end of the input will be at worst 2:1. This will avoid cache misses as long as 3*2^k elements fit into the cache. (I confess to being more than a little bit proud of how clean this code turned out. It took a lot of thinking, but the resultant inner loop is very simple and efficient.) Refs: Bottom-up Mergesort: A Detailed Analysis Wolfgang Panny, Helmut Prodinger Algorithmica 14(4):340--354, October 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294131 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.6.5260 The cost distribution of queue-mergesort, optimal mergesorts, and power-of-two rules Wei-Mei Chen, Hsien-Kuei Hwang, Gen-Huey Chen Journal of Algorithms 30(2); Pages 423--448, February 1999 https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1998.0986 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.5380 Queue-Mergesort Mordecai J. Golin, Robert Sedgewick Information Processing Letters, 48(5):253--259, 10 December 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-q https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0020-0190(93)90088-Q Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/fd560853cc4dca0d0f02184ffa888b4c1be89abc.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:43:02 +00:00
pending = next;
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
lib/list_sort: simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS Rather than a fixed-size array of pending sorted runs, use the ->prev links to keep track of things. This reduces stack usage, eliminates some ugly overflow handling, and reduces the code size. Also: * merge() no longer needs to handle NULL inputs, so simplify. * The same applies to merge_and_restore_back_links(), which is renamed to the less ponderous merge_final(). (It's a static helper function, so we don't need a super-descriptive name; comments will do.) * Document the actual return value requirements on the (*cmp)() function; some callers are already using this feature. x86-64 code size 1086 -> 739 bytes (-347) (Yes, I see checkpatch complaining about no space after comma in "__attribute__((nonnull(2,3,4,5)))". Checkpatch is wrong.) Feedback from Rasmus Villemoes, Andy Shevchenko and Geert Uytterhoeven. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove __pure usage due to mysterious warning] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f63c410e0ff76009c9b58e01027e751ff7fdb749.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2019-05-14 22:42:58 +00:00
/* The final merge, rebuilding prev links */
merge_final(priv, cmp, head, pending, list);
lib: more scalable list_sort() XFS and UBIFS can pass long lists to list_sort(); this alternative implementation scales better, reaching ~3x performance gain when list length exceeds the L2 cache size. Stand-alone program timings were run on a Core 2 duo L1=32KB L2=4MB, gcc-4.4, with flags extracted from an Ubuntu kernel build. Object size is 581 bytes compared to 455 for Mark J. Roberts' code. Worst case for either implementation is a list length just over a power of two, and to roughly the same degree, so here are timing results for a range of 2^N+1 lengths. List elements were 16 bytes each including malloc overhead; initial order was random. time (msec) Tatham-Roberts | generic-Mullis-v2 loop_count length | | ratio 4000000 2 206 294 1.427 2000000 3 176 227 1.289 1000000 5 199 172 0.864 500000 9 235 178 0.757 250000 17 243 182 0.748 125000 33 261 196 0.750 62500 65 277 209 0.754 31250 129 292 219 0.75 15625 257 317 235 0.741 7812 513 340 252 0.741 3906 1025 362 267 0.737 1953 2049 388 283 0.729 ~ L1 size 976 4097 556 323 0.580 488 8193 678 361 0.532 244 16385 773 395 0.510 122 32769 844 418 0.495 61 65537 917 454 0.495 30 131073 1128 543 0.481 15 262145 2355 869 0.369 ~ L2 size 7 524289 5597 1714 0.306 3 1048577 6218 2022 0.325 Mark's code does not actually implement the usual or generic mergesort, but rather a variant from Simon Tatham described here: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html Simon's algorithm performs O(log N) passes over the entire input list, doing merges of sublists that double in size on each pass. The generic algorithm instead merges pairs of equal length lists as early as possible, in recursive order. For either algorithm, the elements that extend the list beyond power-of-two length are a special case, handled as nearly as possible as a "rounding-up" to a full POT. Some intuition for the locality of reference implications of merge order may be gotten by watching this animation: http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/merge-sort Simon's algorithm requires only O(1) extra space rather than the generic algorithm's O(log N), but in my non-recursive implementation the actual O(log N) data is merely a vector of ~20 pointers, which I've put on the stack. Long-running list_sort() calls: If the list passed in may be long, or the client's cmp() callback function is slow, the client's cmp() may periodically invoke cond_resched() to voluntarily yield the CPU. All inner loops of list_sort() call back to cmp(). Stability of the sort: distinct elements that compare equal emerge from the sort in the same order as with Mark's code, for simple test cases. A boot-time test is provided to verify this and other correctness requirements. A kernel that uses drm.ko appears to run normally with this change; I have no suitable hardware to similarly test the use by UBIFS. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: style tweaks, fix comment, make list_sort_test __init] Signed-off-by: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2010-03-05 21:43:15 +00:00
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(list_sort);