Re: [RFC PATCH v3 6/7] scripts/sorttable: Add ORC unwind tables sort concurrently

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Nov 15, 2019, at 1:43 AM, Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ï
> 
>> On 2019/11/15 17:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 02:47:49PM +0800, Shile Zhang wrote:
>>> 
>>> +#if defined(SORTTABLE_64) && defined(UNWINDER_ORC_ENABLED)
>>> +/* ORC unwinder only support X86_64 */
>>> +#include <errno.h>
>>> +#include <pthread.h>
>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>> +
>>> +#define ORC_REG_UNDEFINED    0
>>> +#define ERRSTRING_MAXSZ        256
>>> +
>>> +struct orc_entry {
>>> +    s16        sp_offset;
>>> +    s16        bp_offset;
>>> +    unsigned    sp_reg:4;
>>> +    unsigned    bp_reg:4;
>>> +    unsigned    type:2;
>>> +    unsigned    end:1;
>>> +} __attribute__((packed));
>>> +
>>> +struct orctable_info {
>>> +    size_t    orc_size;
>>> +    size_t    orc_ip_size;
>>> +} orctable;
>> There's ./arch/x86/include/asm/orc_types.h for this. Please don't
>> duplicate. objtool uses that same header.
> Good catch! Thanks for your kindly reminder! I'll remove it.
>>> +/**
>>> + * sort - sort an array of elements
>>> + * @base: pointer to data to sort
>>> + * @num: number of elements
>>> + * @size: size of each element
>>> + * @cmp_func: pointer to comparison function
>>> + * @swap_func: pointer to swap function
>>> + *
>>> + * This function does a heapsort on the given array. You may provide a
>>> + * swap_func function optimized to your element type.
>>> + *
>>> + * Sorting time is O(n log n) both on average and worst-case. While
>>> + * qsort is about 20% faster on average, it suffers from exploitable
>>> + * O(n*n) worst-case behavior and extra memory requirements that make
>>> + * it less suitable for kernel use.
>>> + *
>>> + * This code token out of /lib/sort.c.
>>> + */
>>> +static void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t size,
>>> +      int (*cmp_func)(const void *, const void *),
>>> +      void (*swap_func)(void *, void *, int size))
>>> +{
>>> +    /* pre-scale counters for performance */
>>> +    int i = (num/2 - 1) * size, n = num * size, c, r;
>>> +
>>> +    /* heapify */
>>> +    for ( ; i >= 0; i -= size) {
>>> +        for (r = i; r * 2 + size < n; r  = c) {
>>> +            c = r * 2 + size;
>>> +            if (c < n - size &&
>>> +                    cmp_func(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
>>> +                c += size;
>>> +            if (cmp_func(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
>>> +                break;
>>> +            swap_func(base + r, base + c, size);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    /* sort */
>>> +    for (i = n - size; i > 0; i -= size) {
>>> +        swap_func(base, base + i, size);
>>> +        for (r = 0; r * 2 + size < i; r = c) {
>>> +            c = r * 2 + size;
>>> +            if (c < i - size &&
>>> +                    cmp_func(base + c, base + c + size) < 0)
>>> +                c += size;
>>> +            if (cmp_func(base + r, base + c) >= 0)
>>> +                break;
>>> +            swap_func(base + r, base + c, size);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>> Do we really need to copy the heapsort implementation? That is, why not
>> use libc's qsort() ? This is userspace after all.
> 
> Yes, I think qsort is better choice than copy-paste here. But qsort does not support customized swap func, which is needed for ORC unwind swap two tables together.
> I think it's hard to do with qsort, so I used sort same with original orc unwind table sort.

One solution is to make an array of indices 0, 1, 2, etc, and sort that using a comparison function that compares i,j by actually comparing source[i], source[j]. (Or use pointers, but indices are probably faster on a 64-bit machine if you can use 32-bit indices.) Then, after sorting, permute the original array using the now-sorted indices. In the case where swapping is expensive, this is actually faster, since it does exactly n moves instead of O(n log n).

>