Re: [PATCH v1 15/15] perf jevents: Compress the pmu_events_table

[Namhyung Kim]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:53 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:04 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:37 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +def c_len(s: str) -> int:
> > > +  """Return the length of s a C string
> > > +
> > > +  This doesn't handle all escape characters properly. It first assumes
> > > +  all \ are for escaping, it then adjusts as it will have over counted
> > > +  \\. The code uses \000 rather than \0 as a terminator as an adjacent
> > > +  number would be folded into a string of \0 (ie. "\0" + "5" doesn't
> > > +  equal a terminator followed by the number 5 but the escape of
> > > +  \05). The code adjusts for \000 but not properly for all octal, hex
> > > +  or unicode values.
> > > +  """
> > > +  try:
> > > +    utf = s.encode(encoding='utf-8',errors='strict')
> > > +  except:
> > > +    print(f'broken string {s}')
> > > +    raise
> > > +  return len(utf) - utf.count(b'\\') + utf.count(b'\\\\') - (utf.count(b'\\000') * 2)
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand why it needs the last utf.count * 2.
> > Could you elaborate more?
>
> Yep, so
> 1) start with the length of the string
> 2) \ will escape the next character, e.g. \n, so instead of counting
> that as 2 count it as 1
> 3) but, \\ will now get counted as 0 and it should be 1
> 4) but also, a numeric escape like \000 will get counted as 3 rather
> than 1 so adjust that.

Ah, ok.  Thanks for the explanation.  I think it'd be nice to
have it in the comment.

>
> Obviously this isn't full C string parsing, but it is sufficient for
> what comes in the json files.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > +class BigCString:
> > > +  """A class to hold many strings concatenated together.
> > > +
> > > +  Generating a large number of stand-alone C strings creates a large
> > > +  number of relocations in position independent code. The BigCString
> > > +  is a helper for this case. It builds a single string which within it
> > > +  are all the other C strings (to avoid memory issues the string
> > > +  itself is held as a list of strings). The offsets within the big
> > > +  string are recorded and when stored to disk these don't need
> > > +  relocation. To reduce the size of the string further, identical
> > > +  strings are merged. If a longer string ends-with the same value as a
> > > +  shorter string, these entries are also merged.
> > > +  """
> > > +  strings: Set[str]
> > > +  big_string: Sequence[str]
> > > +  offsets: Dict[str, int]
> > > +
> > > +  def __init__(self):
> > > +    self.strings = set()
> > > +
> > > +  def add(self, s: str) -> None:
> > > +    """Called to add to the big string."""
> > > +    self.strings.add(s)
> > > +
> > > +  def compute(self) -> None:
> > > +    """Called once all strings are added to compute the string and offsets."""
> > > +
> > > +    folded_strings = {}
> > > +    # Determine if two strings can be folded, ie. let 1 string use the
> > > +    # end of another. First reverse all strings and sort them.
> > > +    sorted_reversed_strings = sorted([x[::-1] for x in self.strings])
> >
> > I think some blank lines would increase readability a bit.
>
> Ack. Can add in v2.
>
> > IIUC these strings are already concatenated with \\000
> > by build_c_string(), right?
>
> They are, but this code is agnostic to that. The code must give every
> string an offset, but it also tries as much as possible to combine
> strings. The \\000 defeats that in all but 1 case for x86, but if we
> were to have 1 offset per field it does better.

Do you want to have per field offset on other arch?

>
> > > +    # Strings 'xyz' and 'yz' will now be [ 'zy', 'zyx' ]. Scan forward
> > > +    # for each string to see if there is a better candidate to fold it
> > > +    # into, in the example rather than using 'yz' we can use'xyz' at
> > > +    # an offset of 1.
> > > +    for pos,s in enumerate(sorted_reversed_strings):
> > > +      best_pos = pos
> > > +      for check_pos in range(pos + 1, len(sorted_reversed_strings)):
> > > +        if sorted_reversed_strings[check_pos].startswith(s):
> > > +          best_pos = check_pos
> > > +        else:
> > > +          break
> >
> > That means the best pos is the last match?  I guess python
> > string comparison can deal with strings with NUL bytes in it.
> >
> > Also I'm not sure how much it actually hits?
>
> Once for x86 currently. The code runs quickly so I didn't disable it.
> In other situations it hits more, as mentioned above.
>
> > In my understanding, each string contains a name, description
> > and many other fields.  Does it have some duplication?
>
> There may be, and having an offset per variable would mean we could
> take advantage of that. What I found was that a majority of the
> variables are empty/NULL so what we lose by not having sharing is more
> than gained by reducing a variable down to 1 byte rather than 4 (in
> the order of 100s of KB).
>
> > Maybe I'm missing but not sure it's worth the complexity.
>
> Agreed. There's limited utility in finding 1 string inside another for
> the current string representation. The code is still necessary to give
> every string an offset. The code to find 1 string inside another isn't
> that large nor that slow, so I kept it around.

But my main concern is code complexity.  Although it's not very
complex, it'd be better to start with something simple.  We can
always add it back if needed. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung

> >
> >
> > > +      if pos != best_pos:
> > > +        folded_strings[s[::-1]] = sorted_reversed_strings[best_pos][::-1]
> > > +    # Compute reverse mappings for debugging.
> > > +    fold_into_strings = collections.defaultdict(set)
> > > +    for key, val in folded_strings.items():
> > > +      if key != val:
> > > +        fold_into_strings[val].add(key)
> > > +    # big_string_offset is the current location within the C string
> > > +    # being appended to - comments, etc. don't count. big_string is
> > > +    # the string contents represented as a list. Strings are immutable
> > > +    # in Python and so appending to one causes memory issues, while
> > > +    # lists are mutable.
> > > +    big_string_offset = 0
> > > +    self.big_string = []
> > > +    self.offsets = {}
> > > +    # Emit all strings that aren't folded in a sorted manner.
> > > +    for s in sorted(self.strings):
> > > +      if s not in folded_strings:
> > > +        self.offsets[s] = big_string_offset
> > > +        self.big_string.append(f'/* offset={big_string_offset} */ "')
> > > +        self.big_string.append(s)
> > > +        self.big_string.append('"')
> > > +        if s in fold_into_strings:
> > > +          self.big_string.append(' /* also: ' + ', '.join(fold_into_strings[s]) + ' */')
> > > +        self.big_string.append('\n')
> > > +        big_string_offset += c_len(s)
> > > +        continue
> > > +    # Compute the offsets of the folded strings.
> > > +    for s in folded_strings.keys():
> > > +      assert s not in self.offsets
> > > +      folded_s = folded_strings[s]
> > > +      self.offsets[s] = self.offsets[folded_s] + c_len(folded_s) - c_len(s)
> > > +
> > > +_bcs = BigCString()