Remove unused Edon-R variants #13618

mcmilk · 2022-07-02T09:10:46Z

This commit removes the edonr_byteorder.h file and all unused
variants of Edon-R.

Signed-off-by: Tino Reichardt milky-zfs@mcmilk.de

Motivation and Context

Simplify the code and generate little speedups also ;-)

FreeBSD freebsd 13.1-RELEASE with clang 13.0.0:
implementation               1k      4k     16k     64k    256k      1m      4m     16m
edonr-generic-master       1982    2330    2435    2444    2468    2476    2130    2138
edonr-generic-newone       2202    2567    2679    2657    2618    2430    2373    2461

Debian Linux 5.10.0-16-amd64 with gcc version 10.2.1:
implementation               1k      4k     16k     64k    256k      1m      4m     16m
edonr-generic-master       1898    2495    2650    2748    2778    2700    2737    2739
edonr-generic-newone       2144    2750    2946    2987    2973    2805    2856    2978

The size of the compiled edonr.o with debugging went down from 574,128 to 111,672 bytes.

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

I have run the standard testing procedures on a test system... the CI seems also fine.

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Library ABI change (libzfs, libzfs_core, libnvpair, libuutil and libzfsbootenv)
Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

My code follows the OpenZFS code style requirements.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.
I have read the contributing document.
I have added tests to cover my changes.
I have run the ZFS Test Suite with this change applied.
All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

mcmilk · 2022-07-02T09:18:44Z

I think that ignoring these compiler warnigs may also a reason for memory corruption on i386 and maybe other small stack architectures. I will rework this patch the same way as done with blake3 by pre-allocating a per-cpu space.

rincebrain · 2022-07-02T13:54:48Z

Have you seen memory corruption on i386 with this, then?

I've seen plenty of issues with it panicking on i386, but none of them seemed to be from memory corruption so far...

mcmilk · 2022-07-02T14:29:50Z

Have you seen memory corruption on i386 with this, then?

I've seen plenty of issues with it panicking on i386, but none of them seemed to be from memory corruption so far...

I want it to fit into default stack size ... and remove the pragma then. Maybe this is some source of memory corruption, but I have not checked this in detail. The result for for overwriting stacks is mostly pure random.

When I get it into the stack space, the result is slower also :/

rincebrain · 2022-07-02T14:47:22Z

Just say "I dislike pragmas", if that's why you're doing it.

mcmilk · 2022-07-02T20:54:04Z

Checkstyle is fine, the benchmarks show the same values.... and I could minimize the stack size also a bit.
The -Wframe-larger-than= pragma is needed for gcc: error: the frame size of 1356 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes
Compiling the same file with clang, the stack size is fine - I have no idea why.

rincebrain · 2022-07-02T22:31:16Z

I'd look at precisely what flags the kernel is passing to compile with make V=1, but in particular, I don't think many versions of clang know what-Wframe-larger-than is. (I see some discussion from 2021 about adding various stack usage warning limits, but that's newer than a number of distros' compiler versions, so I wouldn't imagine the kernel would be happy to rely on that working yet.)

mcmilk · 2022-07-03T07:02:53Z

I'd look at precisely what flags the kernel is passing to compile with make V=1, but in particular, I don't think many versions of clang know what-Wframe-larger-than is. (I see some discussion from 2021 about adding various stack usage warning limits, but that's newer than a number of distros' compiler versions, so I wouldn't imagine the kernel would be happy to rely on that working yet.)

I am using gcc version 10.2.1 and clang version 11.0.1 currently. The -Wframe-larger-than is supported and I used -Wframe-larger-than=1 for getting infos about the stack usage of edonr.c (userspace, without ZFS headers).

Results:

# gcc 32bit seems stupid:
[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -Os -m32 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘Q512’:
edonr.c:217:1: warning: the frame size of 1328 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 400 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -m32 -O0 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘Q512’:
edonr.c:217:1: warning: the frame size of 2128 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 400 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -m32 -O1 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘Q512’:
edonr.c:217:1: warning: the frame size of 1304 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 400 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -m32 -O2 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘Q512’:
edonr.c:217:1: warning: the frame size of 1304 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 400 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -m32 -O3 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘Q512’:
edonr.c:217:1: warning: the frame size of 1304 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 432 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

# gcc 64bit ok:
[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ gcc -c -Os -m64 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c: In function ‘EdonRHash’:
edonr.c:325:1: warning: the frame size of 400 bytes is larger than 256 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]

# clang, all ok:
[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ clang -c -Os -m32 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c:121:1: warning: stack frame size of 432 bytes in function 'Q512' [-Wframe-larger-than=]
edonr.c:318:1: warning: stack frame size of 412 bytes in function 'EdonRHash' [-Wframe-larger-than=]

[mcmilk@latitude ~]$ clang -c -Os -m64 -W -Wframe-larger-than=256 edonr.c
edonr.c:318:1: warning: stack frame size of 424 bytes in function 'EdonRHash' [-Wframe-larger-than=]

rincebrain · 2022-07-03T07:22:49Z

Neat, so it believes in it.

It seems like there's no difference in configuration for that flag between compilers, so my only guess would be if Clang is doing a better job at stack optimization...

I'm curious how gcc is behaving so badly at it, in your pasted example for -m32. Maybe clang is playing loose with what's required to be on the stack? Dunno. Might also be interesting to compare with -O2, since I believe that's what the kernel defaults to...

mcmilk · 2022-07-03T07:31:50Z

Neat, so it believes in it.

It seems like there's no difference in configuration for that flag between compilers, so my only guess would be if Clang is doing a better job at stack optimization...

I'm curious how gcc is behaving so badly at it, in your pasted example for -m32. Maybe clang is playing loose with what's required to be on the stack? Dunno. Might also be interesting to compare with -O2, since I believe that's what the kernel defaults to...

The comment above got an update...

Each call within Q512() generates some used bytes on the stack at x32 (for gcc) ... when I remove some rounds in the end ... the stack gets under 1024 ... who cares ;-)

mcmilk · 2022-07-11T13:18:30Z

@rincebrain - could you make a Code Review?
I haven't touched much code... mainly removing the unused variants and some re-using of variables by introducing these ones: uint64_t z1, z2, z3, z4, z5, z6, z7, z8;

rincebrain · 2022-07-21T11:13:39Z

I'll try to get to actually looking it over in depth later this week, but when I tested it, it didn't demonstrate any obvious incorrectness on a 100 GB edonr dataset generated with the old code...

I'll also try and give it a spin on my BE systems just to be safe.

mcmilk · 2022-07-22T09:34:51Z

I rebased again, cause the unused define EDONR_VALID_HASHBITLEN was left...

rincebrain · 2022-10-13T21:41:29Z

I'm not Brian, but I at least use EdonR when I want nopwrite. :)

I apparently have been bad at replying directly in here, but the smashing on sparc64 had nothing to do with this PR, to be clear, it just...does that now, I guess. :/

My concern, which I don't think I posted already, sorry, is that while I don't think any of the cleanup is particularly controversial and you could probably convince something to check and agree that the changes don't change the behavior for any codepaths that are hit, if you were really motivated in that way, I just get worried about any sort of large-scale changes to anything core like checksums or compression (...I say with my fingers in many branches of both pies), and I'm wondering how much the cleanup and performance delta is worth any risk of changing it, even marginal. (Normally I'd also be worried about ever syncing with upstream, but I think we can all agree that's never changing again.)

I also tend to optimize toward avoiding risk when giving advice outside of what I do to my own systems, though, so perhaps I'm being overcautious.

behlendorf · 2022-10-13T21:42:57Z

@mcmilk I'm sure edonr is used and nobody would complain about a speed up! But I do share @rincebrain's concerns above about this being a non-trivial change. Creating a testing tool is great, but can you also do some some manual testing if you haven't already. I'm thinking something along the lines of creating a pool on one platform, filling it with some data, then importing the pool on other platforms and scrub it to verify those implementations. It seems like that should catch anything seriously broken.

mcmilk · 2022-10-14T05:35:19Z

@mcmilk I'm sure edonr is used and nobody would complain about a speed up! But I do share @rincebrain's concerns above about this being a non-trivial change. Creating a testing tool is great, but can you also do some some manual testing if you haven't already. I'm thinking something along the lines of creating a pool on one platform, filling it with some data, then importing the pool on other platforms and scrub it to verify those implementations. It seems like that should catch anything seriously broken.

I only have x86_64 arch VMs with full root access. Sth. like Arm, Aarch64, PPC and so on is only userspace testing.
But I cold ask for a PPC64 VM @ https://openpower.ic.unicamp.br/minicloud/ ... maybe we could also get a buildbot VM there.

Has someone of you (@rincebrain @behlendorf) already tried to get a machine there?

My Raspberry Pi3 may also an option... I forgot. Will import with old zfs there... this should be a simple testcase... will do this in the weekend.

rincebrain · 2022-10-14T05:57:35Z

I've not, but I've heard it's straightforward and have suggested adding a CI bot with one.

I do have sparc64 and aarch64 laying around my home, and usually have a ppc64le VM but the host is off for maintenance atm.

behlendorf · 2022-10-14T18:40:29Z

Nor have I. Another option might be to update PR 6209, it adds offline zhack scrub command which runs entirely in user space.

mcmilk · 2022-10-19T20:06:55Z

Not there anymore: https://openpower.ic.unicamp.br/minicloud/ :/

behlendorf · 2023-03-03T00:39:44Z

A fresh rebase on master now that #13741 has been merged would be nice.

mcmilk · 2023-03-03T19:53:12Z

CentOS 7 does this while installing:

Error: Package: python2-pyzfs-2.0.7-1.el7.noarch (@/python2-pyzfs-2.0.7-1.el7.noarch)
           Requires: libnvpair3 = 2.0.7
           Removing: libnvpair3-2.0.7-1.el7.x86_64 (@/libnvpair3-2.0.7-1.el7.x86_64)
               libnvpair3 = 2.0.7-1.el7
           Updated By: libnvpair3-2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7.x86_64 (/libnvpair3-2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7.x86_64)
               libnvpair3 = 2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7
Error: Package: python2-pyzfs-2.0.7-1.el7.noarch (@/python2-pyzfs-2.0.7-1.el7.noarch)
           Requires: libzfs4 = 2.0.7
           Removing: libzfs4-2.0.7-1.el7.x86_64 (@/libzfs4-2.0.7-1.el7.x86_64)
               libzfs4 = 2.0.7-1.el7
           Obsoleted By: libzfs5-2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7.x86_64 (/libzfs5-2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7.x86_64)
              ~libzfs5 = 2.1.99-1781_g4f4252c.el7
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

This commit removes the edonr_byteorder.h file and all unused variants of Edon-R. Signed-off-by: Tino Reichardt <milky-zfs@mcmilk.de>

This commit removes the edonr_byteorder.h file and all unused variants of Edon-R. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Tino Reichardt <milky-zfs@mcmilk.de> Closes openzfs#13618

New Features - Block cloning (#13392) - Linux container support (#14070, #14097, #12263) - Scrub error log (#12812, #12355) - BLAKE3 checksums (#12918) - Corrective "zfs receive" - Vdev and zpool user properties Performance - Fully adaptive ARC (#14359) - SHA2 checksums (#13741) - Edon-R checksums (#13618) - Zstd early abort (#13244) - Prefetch improvements (#14603, #14516, #14402, #14243, #13452) - General optimization (#14121, #14123, #14039, #13680, #13613, #13606, #13576, #13553, #12789, #14925, #14948) Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch 7 times, most recently from 69a0e97 to b7b50eb Compare July 2, 2022 13:47

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from b7b50eb to 2a0e313 Compare July 2, 2022 13:54

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch 5 times, most recently from 0d877c0 to 7360810 Compare July 2, 2022 20:31

behlendorf added Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing labels Jul 5, 2022

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from 7360810 to c7810bc Compare July 5, 2022 18:17

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from c7810bc to a9fc61a Compare July 22, 2022 09:29

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from a9fc61a to ea7f093 Compare July 31, 2022 15:45

This was referenced Oct 16, 2022

Add zhack scrub sub command for offline scrubs in userland #14036

Closed

Add zhack scrub sub command for offline scrubs in userland #14037

Closed

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch 3 times, most recently from fbfdf4e to bb53d13 Compare December 22, 2022 19:14

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch 2 times, most recently from 71a5bf3 to fd0883f Compare February 27, 2023 18:00

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from fd0883f to 4f4252c Compare March 3, 2023 09:20

behlendorf self-requested a review March 7, 2023 01:21

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from 30260f1 to 4f4252c Compare March 13, 2023 23:15

Remove unused Edon-R variants

dc895ab

This commit removes the edonr_byteorder.h file and all unused variants of Edon-R. Signed-off-by: Tino Reichardt <milky-zfs@mcmilk.de>

mcmilk force-pushed the edonr-cleanup branch from 4f4252c to dc895ab Compare March 13, 2023 23:17

behlendorf approved these changes Mar 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

behlendorf added Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested) and removed Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing labels Mar 14, 2023

behlendorf merged commit fe6a7b7 into openzfs:master Mar 14, 2023

mcmilk deleted the edonr-cleanup branch March 15, 2023 19:21

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove unused Edon-R variants #13618

Remove unused Edon-R variants #13618

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rincebrain commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rincebrain commented Jul 21, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 22, 2022

rincebrain commented Oct 13, 2022

behlendorf commented Oct 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Oct 14, 2022

rincebrain commented Oct 14, 2022

behlendorf commented Oct 14, 2022

mcmilk commented Oct 19, 2022

behlendorf commented Mar 3, 2023

mcmilk commented Mar 3, 2023

Remove unused Edon-R variants #13618

Remove unused Edon-R variants #13618

Conversation

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022 • edited Loading

Motivation and Context

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

Checklist:

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022

rincebrain commented Jul 2, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 • edited Loading

rincebrain commented Jul 3, 2022 • edited Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 • edited Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 11, 2022 • edited Loading

rincebrain commented Jul 21, 2022

mcmilk commented Jul 22, 2022

rincebrain commented Oct 13, 2022

behlendorf commented Oct 13, 2022 • edited Loading

mcmilk commented Oct 14, 2022

rincebrain commented Oct 14, 2022

behlendorf commented Oct 14, 2022

mcmilk commented Oct 19, 2022

behlendorf commented Mar 3, 2023

mcmilk commented Mar 3, 2023

mcmilk commented Jul 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rincebrain commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

mcmilk commented Jul 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

behlendorf commented Oct 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading