Allow the `dictContentSize` to be any size. The finalized dictionary
content size must be at least as large as the maximum repcode (8). So we
add zero bytes to the dictionary to ensure that we meet that
requirement.
I've removed this restriction because its been causing us headaches when
people complain that dictionary training failed. It fails because there
isn't enough useful content to put in the dictionary. Either because
every sample is exactly the same and less than ZDICT_CONTENTSIZE_MIN bytes,
or there isn't enough content. Instead, we should succeed in creating
the dictionary, and it is up to the user to decide if it is worthwhile.
It is possible that the tables alone provide enough value.
NOTE: This allows us to produce dictionaries with finalized
`dictContentSize < ZDICT_CONTENTSIZE_MIN`. But, they are still valid
zstd dictionaries. We could remove the `ZDICT_CONTENTSIZE_MIN` macro,
but I've decided to leave that for now, so we don't break users.
* When dynamic dispatching to bmi2 add lzcnt and bmi to the
TARGET_ATTRIBUTE.
* Centralize the bmi2 TARGET_ATTRIBUTE definition to
BMI2_TARGET_ATTRIBUTE so we can change it in the future.
* Only enable bmi2 when both bmi1 & bmi2 are supported. There shouldn't
be any cases where bmi2 is supported but bmi1 isn't. But, since we are
using the instruction we should check bmi1 as well.
PR #2850 attempted to fix a determinism bug that was uncovered by OSS-Fuzz. It
succeeded in addressing that source of non-determinism, but introduced a new
one: it was possible, when index reduction occurred, to map indices in the
window to the reserved value, which would cause them to be zeroed, potentially
altering parsing of the input.
This PR addresses this issue. It makes sure that the bottom of the window is
always `>= ZSTD_WINDOW_START_INDEX`.
I'm not sure if this makes #2850 redundant. I think it's probably still
valuable to have that protection as well.
Credit to OSS-Fuzz for discovering this issue.
The optimal parser is unlikely to be used in the linux kernel in
practice. There is no reason these functions should be force inlined,
since we aren't gaining anything, and are losing build size.
| Compiler | Before (Bytes) | After (Bytes) | Delta (Bytes) |
|----------|----------------|---------------|---------------|
| gcc-11 | 1142090 | 952754 | -189336 |
| clang-12 | 1228402 | 976290 | -252112 |
This is a temporary solution pending the resolution of PR #2862 in the
`dev` branch.
Take the same approach as in PR #2828 [0] to remove functions that force
inline many function bodies and `switch`. Instead, create one function per
"template" combination, and then switch between these functions. This
allows the compiler to break the large function into many small
functions, which generally helps codegen.
Also, in the `extDict` modes when there is no ext-dict, call the top
level function instead of the force inlined one, to save on code size.
I'm specifically doing this because gcc on the parisc architecture doesn't
handle the large function body well, and ends up using a lot of excess
stack space. Outlining these functions fixes it.
Putting stack marking into every assembly files is required to indicate
that the stack does not need to be executable.
Executable flag on stack conflicts with some security measures, Systemd
MemoryDenyWriteExecute=yes for example.
Previously, if an index was equal to `reducerValue + 1`, it would get remapped
during index reduction to 1 i.e. `ZSTD_DUBT_UNSORTED_MARK`. This can affect the
parsing of the input slightly, by causing tree nodes to be nullified when they
otherwise wouldn't be. This hardly matters from a correctness or efficiency
perspective, but it does impact determinism.
So this commit changes index reduction to avoid mapping indices to collide with
`ZSTD_DUBT_UNSORTED_MARK`.
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/
