Discussion:
[PATCH v2] Improve performance of strstr
Wilco Dijkstra
2018-10-03 13:27:37 UTC
Permalink
v2: Add documentation comment back in. Reduce size of shift table further to
gain another 10% performance on short strings.

This patch significantly improves performance of strstr by using Sunday's
Quick-Search algorithm. Due to its simplicity it has the best average
performance of string matching algorithms on almost all inputs. It uses a
bad-character shift table to skip past mismatches.
The needle length is limited to 254 - this reduces the shift table memory
4 to 8 times, lowering preprocessing overhead and minimizing cache effects.
The limit also implies its worst-case performance is linear.

Larger needles are processed by the Two-Way algorithm. The macro AVAILABLE
has been simplified as the haystack length is always precomputed. This
results in a 2.5 times speedup for large needles, reducing the performance
drop when the Quick-Search algorithm can't be used.

The code for small needles 1-4 bytes has been simplified and now uses unsigned
char. Since the optimized code relies on 8-bit chars, we defer to the
size-optimized implementation if CHAR_BIT > 8.

The performance gain of finding a set of randomly chosen words of size 8 in
256 bytes of English text is 14 times on AArch64. For longer haystacks the
gain is well over 20 times.

The size-optimized strstr has also been rewritten from scratch to improve
performance. On the same test the performance gain is 69%.

Tested against GLIBC testsuite and passes randomized tests.

---
diff --git a/newlib/libc/string/strstr.c b/newlib/libc/string/strstr.c
index e72b4bd9125f928486f52bb3ebd199eacef7cfaf..2c6d895087d61be52b379fc46907b4b29c73cef9 100644
--- a/newlib/libc/string/strstr.c
+++ b/newlib/libc/string/strstr.c
@@ -1,3 +1,31 @@
+/* Optimized strstr function.
+ Copyright (c) 2018 Arm Ltd. All rights reserved.
+
+ SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+
+ Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+ modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
+ are met:
+ 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
+ notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+ 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+ notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
+ documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+ 3. The name of the company may not be used to endorse or promote
+ products derived from this software without specific prior written
+ permission.
+
+ THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ARM LTD ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+ MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
+ IN NO EVENT SHALL ARM LTD BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
+ SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
+ TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
+ PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
+ LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
+ NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
+ SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */
+
/*
FUNCTION
<<strstr>>---find string segment
@@ -29,141 +57,134 @@ QUICKREF
*/

#include <string.h>
+#include <limits.h>
+
+#if defined(PREFER_SIZE_OVER_SPEED) || defined(__OPTIMIZE_SIZE__) \
+ || CHAR_BIT > 8

-#if defined(PREFER_SIZE_OVER_SPEED) || defined(__OPTIMIZE_SIZE__)
+/* Small and efficient strstr implementation. */
char *
-strstr (const char *searchee,
- const char *lookfor)
+strstr (const char *hs, const char *ne)
{
- /* Less code size, but quadratic performance in the worst case. */
- if (*searchee == 0)
- {
- if (*lookfor)
- return (char *) NULL;
- return (char *) searchee;
- }
+ size_t i;
+ int c = ne[0];

- while (*searchee)
- {
- size_t i;
- i = 0;
+ if (c == 0)
+ return (char*)hs;

- while (1)
- {
- if (lookfor[i] == 0)
- {
- return (char *) searchee;
- }
-
- if (lookfor[i] != searchee[i])
- {
- break;
- }
- i++;
- }
- searchee++;
+ for ( ; hs[0] != '\0'; hs++)
+ {
+ if (hs[0] != c)
+ continue;
+ for (i = 1; ne[i] != 0; i++)
+ if (hs[i] != ne[i])
+ break;
+ if (ne[i] == '\0')
+ return (char*)hs;
}

- return (char *) NULL;
+ return NULL;
+}

#else /* compilation for speed */

# define RETURN_TYPE char *
-# define AVAILABLE(h, h_l, j, n_l) \
- (!memchr ((h) + (h_l), '\0', (j) + (n_l) - (h_l)) \
- && ((h_l) = (j) + (n_l)))
+/* AVAILABLE assumes haystack length has been precomputed. */
+# define AVAILABLE(h, h_l, j, n_l) ((j) <= (h_l) - (n_l))
# include "str-two-way.h"

+/* Number of bits used to index shift table. */
+#define SHIFT_TABLE_BITS 6
+
static inline char *
-strstr2 (const char *hs, const char *ne)
+strstr2 (const unsigned char *hs, const unsigned char *ne)
{
uint32_t h1 = (ne[0] << 16) | ne[1];
uint32_t h2 = 0;
- int c = hs[0];
- while (h1 != h2 && c != 0)
- {
+ for (int c = hs[0]; h1 != h2 && c != 0; c = *++hs)
h2 = (h2 << 16) | c;
- c = *++hs;
- }
return h1 == h2 ? (char *)hs - 2 : NULL;
}

static inline char *
-strstr3 (const char *hs, const char *ne)
+strstr3 (const unsigned char *hs, const unsigned char *ne)
{
uint32_t h1 = (ne[0] << 24) | (ne[1] << 16) | (ne[2] << 8);
uint32_t h2 = 0;
- int c = hs[0];
- while (h1 != h2 && c != 0)
- {
+ for (int c = hs[0]; h1 != h2 && c != 0; c = *++hs)
h2 = (h2 | c) << 8;
- c = *++hs;
- }
return h1 == h2 ? (char *)hs - 3 : NULL;
}

static inline char *
-strstr4 (const char *hs, const char *ne)
+strstr4 (const unsigned char *hs, const unsigned char *ne)
{
uint32_t h1 = (ne[0] << 24) | (ne[1] << 16) | (ne[2] << 8) | ne[3];
uint32_t h2 = 0;
- int c = hs[0];
- while (h1 != h2 && c != 0)
- {
- h2 = (h2 << 8) | c;
- c = *++hs;
- }
+ for (int c = hs[0]; c != 0 && h1 != h2; c = *++hs)
+ h2 = (h2 << 8) | c;
return h1 == h2 ? (char *)hs - 4 : NULL;
}

+/* Extremely fast strstr algorithm with guaranteed linear-time performance.
+ Small needles up to size 4 use a dedicated linear search. Longer needles
+ up to size 254 use Sunday's Quick-Search algorithm. Due to its simplicity
+ it has the best average performance of string matching algorithms on almost
+ all inputs. It uses a bad-character shift table to skip past mismatches.
+ By limiting the needle length to 254, the shift table can be reduced to 8
+ bits per entry, lowering preprocessing overhead and minimizing cache effects.
+ The limit also implies the worst-case performance is linear.
+ Even larger needles are processed by the linear-time Two-Way algorithm.
+*/
char *
-strstr (const char *searchee,
- const char *lookfor)
+strstr (const char *haystack, const char *needle)
{
- /* Larger code size, but guaranteed linear performance. */
- const char *haystack = searchee;
- const char *needle = lookfor;
- size_t needle_len; /* Length of NEEDLE. */
- size_t haystack_len; /* Known minimum length of HAYSTACK. */
- int ok = 1; /* True if NEEDLE is prefix of HAYSTACK. */
+ const unsigned char *hs = (const unsigned char *) haystack;
+ const unsigned char *ne = (const unsigned char *) needle;

/* Handle short needle special cases first. */
- if (needle[0] == '\0')
- return (char *) haystack;
- if (needle[1] == '\0')
- return strchr (haystack, needle[0]);
- if (needle[2] == '\0')
- return strstr2 (haystack, needle);
- if (needle[3] == '\0')
- return strstr3 (haystack, needle);
- if (needle[4] == '\0')
- return strstr4 (haystack, needle);
-
- /* Determine length of NEEDLE, and in the process, make sure
- HAYSTACK is at least as long (no point processing all of a long
- NEEDLE if HAYSTACK is too short). */
- while (*haystack && *needle)
- ok &= *haystack++ == *needle++;
- if (*needle)
+ if (ne[0] == '\0')
+ return (char *) hs;
+ if (ne[1] == '\0')
+ return (char*)strchr (hs, ne[0]);
+ if (ne[2] == '\0')
+ return strstr2 (hs, ne);
+ if (ne[3] == '\0')
+ return strstr3 (hs, ne);
+ if (ne[4] == '\0')
+ return strstr4 (hs, ne);
+
+ size_t ne_len = strlen (ne);
+ size_t hs_len = strlen (hs);
+
+ /* Ensure haystack length is >= needle length. */
+ if (hs_len < ne_len)
return NULL;
- if (ok)
- return (char *) searchee;
-
- /* Reduce the size of haystack using strchr, since it has a smaller
- linear coefficient than the Two-Way algorithm. */
- needle_len = needle - lookfor;
- haystack = strchr (searchee + 1, *lookfor);
- if (!haystack || needle_len == 1)
- return (char *) haystack;
- haystack_len = (haystack > searchee + needle_len ? 1
- : needle_len + searchee - haystack);
-
- /* Perform the search. */
- if (needle_len < LONG_NEEDLE_THRESHOLD)
- return two_way_short_needle ((const unsigned char *) haystack,
- haystack_len,
- (const unsigned char *) lookfor, needle_len);
- return two_way_long_needle ((const unsigned char *) haystack, haystack_len,
- (const unsigned char *) lookfor, needle_len);
-#endif /* compilation for speed */
+
+ /* Use the Quick-Search algorithm for needle lengths less than 255. */
+ if (__builtin_expect (ne_len < 255, 1))
+ {
+ uint8_t shift[1 << SHIFT_TABLE_BITS];
+ const unsigned char *end = hs + hs_len - ne_len;
+ hs--;
+
+ /* Initialize bad character shift hash table. */
+ memset (shift, ne_len + 1, sizeof (shift));
+ for (int i = 0; i < ne_len; i++)
+ shift[ne[i] % sizeof (shift)] = ne_len - i;
+
+ /* Search by skipping past bad characters. */
+ size_t tmp = shift[hs[ne_len] % sizeof (shift)];
+ for (hs += tmp; hs <= end; hs += tmp)
+ {
+ tmp = shift[hs[ne_len] % sizeof (shift)];
+ if (memcmp (hs, ne, ne_len) == 0)
+ return (char*) hs;
+ }
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ /* Use Two-Way algorithm for very long needles. */
+ return two_way_long_needle (hs, hs_len, ne, ne_len);
}
+#endif /* compilation for speed */
Eric Blake
2018-10-03 14:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilco Dijkstra
v2: Add documentation comment back in. Reduce size of shift table further to
gain another 10% performance on short strings.
I haven't reviewed the patch itself (although in theory it sounds fine),
Post by Wilco Dijkstra
Tested against GLIBC testsuite and passes randomized tests.
Passing the glibc testsuite isn't all that reassuring, as they just
barely had to squash a strstr bug this year that was not caught by their
testsuite at the time:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23637
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Wilco Dijkstra
2018-10-03 16:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Blake
Passing the glibc testsuite isn't all that reassuring, as they just
barely had to squash a strstr bug this year that was not caught by their
It's better than nothing given newlib doesn't have any testsuite at all...
Do you know of a proper test for strstr by any chance?

Wilco
Eric Blake
2018-10-03 16:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilco Dijkstra
Post by Eric Blake
Passing the glibc testsuite isn't all that reassuring, as they just
barely had to squash a strstr bug this year that was not caught by their
It's better than nothing given newlib doesn't have any testsuite at all...
Do you know of a proper test for strstr by any chance?
Nothing that was written from the grounds of code coverage, but between
the glibc test, the gnulib test [1] (which was also recently enhanced to
catch the glibc failure), and your testing (if you want to make that
public), we're probably doing fairly well. A testsuite written for 100%
coverage as determined by gcov, or performed by a fuzzer that aims to
get to the same results, might be even more reassuring; but I'm not
asking you to tackle that. I'm just pointing out that a passing test
does not always imply a passing implementation, if the test was not
written with exact knowledge of every possible branch in the code.

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/tests/test-strstr.c
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Corinna Vinschen
2018-10-10 09:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilco Dijkstra
Post by Eric Blake
Passing the glibc testsuite isn't all that reassuring, as they just
barely had to squash a strstr bug this year that was not caught by their
It's better than nothing given newlib doesn't have any testsuite at all...
Do you know of a proper test for strstr by any chance?
Nothing that was written from the grounds of code coverage, but between the
glibc test, the gnulib test [1] (which was also recently enhanced to catch
the glibc failure), and your testing (if you want to make that public),
we're probably doing fairly well. A testsuite written for 100% coverage as
determined by gcov, or performed by a fuzzer that aims to get to the same
results, might be even more reassuring; but I'm not asking you to tackle
that. I'm just pointing out that a passing test does not always imply a
passing implementation, if the test was not written with exact knowledge of
every possible branch in the code.
[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/tests/test-strstr.c
Anybody going to run this test?


Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat
Loading...