Re: [RESEND PATCH] flattree: Optimize stringtable_insert()

Yao Zi <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.devicetree-compiler
Message-ID <Z_s0VifEhOvtMz_8@pie>
On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 06:45:07AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Yao,
> 
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 at 04:05, Yao Zi <[email protected]> wrote:

...

> > diff --git a/flattree.c b/flattree.c
> > index 30e6de2..afca1f2 100644
> > --- a/flattree.c
> > +++ b/flattree.c
> > @@ -218,23 +218,134 @@ static struct emitter asm_emitter = {
> >         .property = asm_emit_property,
> >  };
> >
> > -static int stringtable_insert(struct data *d, const char *str)
> > +struct stringtable {
> > +       unsigned int len, cap;
> > +       struct data data;
> > +       int *slots;
> > +};
> 
> Could you comment these items, including that a slot of -1 means it is free?

Sure, I'll do it in v2.

> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Must be 2^n to ensure stringtable.cap - 1 correctly masks hash into the
> > + * index of slots
> > + */
> > +#define stringtable_initcap            256
> 
> When building the kernel, does stringtable_grow() get called
> regularly? If so, and if it affects execution table, perhaps this
> value could be larger?

Among the 1161 devicetrees in Linux 6.11 (counted by
find arch/arm64/boot/dts/ -name '*.dtb' | wc -l), 821 of them trigger
stringtable_grow() for at least one time. But increasing the initial
capability doesn't help much for the overall performance since it's not
a hot function actually. Thus I'd like to keep the macro as is.

> > +
> > +static unsigned int stringtable_hash(const char *str, size_t len)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned int hash = (unsigned int)len;
> > +
> > +       for (; len > 0; len--)
> > +               hash ^= (hash << 5) + (hash >> 2) + str[len - 1];
> > +
> > +       return hash;
> > +}

...

> > +static void stringtable_grow(struct stringtable *strtab)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned int newcap = strtab->cap * 2;
> > +       int *newslots = xmalloc(newcap * sizeof(int));
> > +       unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < newcap; i++)
> > +               newslots[i] = -1;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < strtab->cap; i++) {
> > +               int off = strtab->slots[i];
> > +               const char *str = strtab->data.val + off;
> > +               unsigned int hash = stringtable_hash(str, strlen(str));
> > +               int newslot = stringtable_findslot(newslots, newcap, hash);
> > +
> > +               newslots[newslot] = off;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       strtab->cap     = newcap;
> > +       strtab->slots   = newslots;
> 
> Does strtab->slots get freed here?

Thanks for catching this! It's lost here, causing some leaking, I'll fix
it in v2.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static int stringtable_insert(struct stringtable *strtab, const char *str)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned int hash, i, mask;
> > +       int *slots, *slot;
> > +       const char *dup;
> > +       size_t len;
> > +
> > +       if (strtab->cap < strtab->len * 2)
> > +               stringtable_grow(strtab);
> > +
> > +       len     = strlen(str);
> > +       mask    = strtab->cap - 1;
> > +       hash    = stringtable_hash(str, len);
> > +       slots   = strtab->slots;
> > +
> > +       for (i = hash & mask; *(slot = &slots[i]) != -1; i = (i + 1) & mask) {
> > +               const char *oldstr = strtab->data.val + *slot;
> > +
> > +               if (streq(str, oldstr))
> > +                       return *slot;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       /* Try to match a subsequence */
> > +       dup = memmem(strtab->data.val, strtab->data.len, str, len + 1);
> 
> Is there a case early on where strtab->data.len < len + 1 ?

Yes, but I don't think it's worth a special branch, as it's very rare.
AFAIK the memmem implementation of musl libc is even able to handle such
cases,

        /* Return immediately when needle is longer than haystack */
        if (k<l) return 0;


> > +       if (dup) {
> > +               *slot = dup - strtab->data.val;
> > +       } else {
> > +               *slot = strtab->data.len;
> > +               strtab->data = data_append_data(strtab->data, str, len + 1);
> > +       }
> 
> What case is this subsequence-code handling?

String block contains C-style strings (terminated by zero). If A is
a suffix of B, we could reuse the data of B by pointing to the middle of
B when emitting A. For example, we could reuse "enable-method" when
emitting "method", which is common in a DTS of ARM SoC.

> If you add "frederick"
> and then "fred", won't this end up using "frederick" for both, in the
> flattened tree? I suppose not since the tests pass, but I think a
> better comment would help.

This won't happen since we take the terminating '\0' into account when
searching for a subsequence, the two strings are actually "frederick\0"
and "fred\0", where the latter is obviously not a subsequence of the
former one.

At first I didn't add such sebsequence deduplication and then noted
small increasing of size of compiled devicetree blobs. Then I realized
the original code may reuse sebsequences as well -- sure I'll add a
comment to explain to avoid confusion in the future.

> > +
> > +       strtab->len++;
> > +
> > +       return *slot;
> > +}
> > +

...

> Regards,
> Simon

Regards,
Yao Zi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.