that's clearer than finding the tables somewhere in the middle of `compress.c`.
Also, down the line, it may potentially allows zstd to feature adjusted tables depending on target cpu.
Speed up compilation times by moving each specialized search function
into its own function. This is faster because compilers can handle many
smaller functions much faster than one gigantic function. The previous
approach generated one giant function with `switch` statements and
inlining to select the implementation.
| Compiler | Flags | Dev Time (s) | PR Time (s) | Delta |
|----------|-------------------------------------|--------------|-------------|-------|
| gcc | -O3 | 16.5 | 5.6 | -66% |
| gcc | -O3 -g -fsanitize=address,undefined | 158.9 | 38.2 | -75% |
| clang | -O3 | 36.5 | 5.5 | -85% |
| clang | -O3 -g -fsanitize=address,undefined | 27.8 | 17.5 | -37% |
This also reduces the binary size because the search functions are no
longer inlined into the main body.
| Compiler | Dev libzstd.a Size (B) | PR libzstd.a Size (B) | Delta |
|----------|------------------------|-----------------------|-------|
| gcc | 1563868 | 1308844 | -16% |
| clang | 1924372 | 1376020 | -28% |
Finally, the performance is not impacted significantly by this change,
in fact we generally see a small speed boost.
| Compiler | Level | Dev Speed (MB/s) | PR Speed (MB/s) | Delta |
|----------|-------|------------------|-----------------|-------|
| gcc | 5 | 110.6 | 110.0 | -0.5% |
| gcc | 7 | 70.4 | 72.2 | +2.5% |
| gcc | 9 | 53.2 | 53.5 | +0.5% |
| gcc | 13 | 12.7 | 12.9 | +1.5% |
| clang | 5 | 113.9 | 110.4 | -3.0% |
| clang | 7 | 67.7 | 70.6 | +4.2% |
| clang | 9 | 51.9 | 52.2 | +0.5% |
| clang | 13 | 12.4 | 13.3 | +7.2% |
The compression strategy is unmodified in this PR, so the compressed size
should be exactly the same. I may have a follow up PR to slightly improve
the compression ratio, if it doesn't cost too much speed.
Fix underflow of `nbCompares` by switching to an `int` and comparing
`nbCompares > 0`. This is a minimal fix, because I don't want to change
the logic. These loops seem to be doing `nbCompares + 1` comparisons.
The bug was reported by Dan Carpenter and found by Smatch static
checker.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008063704.GA5370@kili/
There is no minimum value check, so the parameter could be negative.
Switch to the standard pattern of using `BOUNDCHECK()`.
The bug was reported by Dan Carpenter and found by Smatch static
checker.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211008063704.GA5370@kili/
Since we're now hashing the position ahead even if we find a long match and
don't search that next position, we can write it back into the hashtable even
in long matches. This seems to cost us no speed, and improves compression
ratio slightly!
Aside from maybe a latency win in the loop, this means that when we find a
short match, we've already done the hash we need to check the next long match.
* Limit training samples size to 2GB
* simplified DISPLAYLEVEL() macro to use global vqriable instead of local.
* refactored training samples loading
* fixed compiler warning
* addressed comments from the pull request
* addressed @terrelln comments
* missed some fixes
* fixed type mismatch
* Fixed bug passing estimated number of samples rather insted of the loaded number of samples.
Changed unit conversion not to use bit-shifts.
* fixed a declaration after code
* fixed type conversion compile errors
* fixed more type castting
* fixed more type mismatching
* changed sizes type to size_t
* move type casting
* more type cast fixes
binhdvo
Yann Collet
Yann Collet
Nick Terrell
Martin Liska
Felix Handte
sen
stanjo74