lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lib/bch: Remove VLA usage
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:42:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> In the quest to remove all stack VLA usage from the kernel[1], this removes
>> the on-stack working buffers in favor of pre-allocated working buffers
>> (which were already used in other places). Since these routines must
>> already be serialized (since they work on bch->ecc_buf), adding the usage
>> of bch->ecc_work would be similarly safe. Additionally, since "max m" is
>> only 15, this was adjusted to just use a fixed size array in those cases.
>
> Hi Kees,
>
> Using an on-stack buffer instead of a pre-allocated buffer was done initially
> for performance reasons. For "usual" (m,t) values (for instance m=13, t=4),
> there is a huge performance difference between the on-stack buffer version and
> the kmalloc version. I didn't investigate the reason for this, but I ran a
> quick benchmark on my PC:
>
> little-endian, type sizes: int=4 long=8 longlong=8
> cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 650 @ 3.20GHz
> calibration: iter=4.9143µs niter=2034 nsamples=200 m=13 t=4
>
> Buffer allocation | Encoding throughput (Mbit/s)
> ---------------------------------------------------
> on-stack, VLA | 3988
> on-stack, fixed | 4494
> kmalloc | 1967
>
> The first line shows the performance of the current code, using a VLA.
> The second line shows the performance when r[] is allocated on the stack with
> a fixed, constant size (the maximum allowed value).
> The third line shows the performance when r is a pre-allocated working buffer.
>
> In fact, when using a pre-allocated buffer there is no need to introduce 'ecc_work':
> you can directly point 'r' to bch->ecc_buf and remove memcpy() surrounding the
> 'while (mlen--)' loop. Everything happens inside the 'bch->ecc_buf' buffer.
> But with a big performance penalty. Looks like declaring a temporary buffer on the
> stack to store ECC values allows GCC to do a better job at optimizing the loop.
>
> So rather than introducing 'ecc_work', I suggest we compute the maximum allowed
> size for r[] and use that:
>
> sizeof(r) = sizeof(uint32_t)*(l+1)
> l+1 = BCH_ECC_WORDS(bch) = DIV_ROUND_UP(m*t, 32)
>
> We also know that:
>
> m*t < 2^m - 1 (ECC maximum size)
>
> therefore:
>
> l+1 < DIV_ROUND_UP(2^m - 1, 32) < 2^(m-5)
>
> So instead of 'uint32_t r[l+1]' we could declare 'uint32_t r[1 << (BCH_MAX_M-5)]'.
> And replace 'sizeof(r)' with 'sizeof(*bch->ecc_buf)*(l+1)' in memset/memcpy calls.
> In practice the actual maximum size of r[] is (1 << (15-5))*sizeof(uint32_t) = 4096 bytes.
>
> What do you think ?

I actually did that implementation first since I didn't realize how
large that allocation could get. 4096 is a HUGE stack allocation. The
kernel build warns at 2048. The defaults seen during allmodconfig are:

CONFIG_BCH_CONST_M=14
CONFIG_BCH_CONST_T=4

So those builds are already seeing a large stack allocation, but it
was hidden from the checking tools before because it was a dynamic
stack allocation:

lib/bch.c: In function ‘encode_bch’:
lib/bch.c:261:1: warning: the frame size of 2288 bytes is larger than
2048 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

This could be masked in the Makefile, though, since this is already
the situation the code runs under. I'll send that patch...

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-30 23:13    [W:0.059 / U:2.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site