[PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Soumyadip Das Mahapatra]

Hello everybody !!
      The patch below is what i think is a better approach to
compute int_sqrt().

What about it ?

Thanks !!

---
--- a/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-04-17 08:19:44.000000000 +0530
+++ b/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-07-02 11:37:01.000000000 +0530
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 
@@ -7,26 +6,21 @@
  * @x: integer of which to calculate the sqrt
  *
  * A very rough approximation to the sqrt() function.
+ * Improved version from the previous one.
  */
 unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
 {
-    unsigned long op, res, one;
-
-    op = x;
-    res = 0;
-
-    one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
-    while (one > op)
-        one >>= 2;
-
-    while (one != 0) {
-        if (op >= res + one) {
-            op = op - (res + one);
-            res = res +  2 * one;
-        }
-        res /= 2;
-        one /= 4;
-    }
-    return res;
+    unsigned long ub, lb, m;
+    lb = 1;                /* lower bound */
+    ub = (x >> 5) + 8;        /* upper bound */
+    do {
+        m = (ub + lb) >>  1;    /* middle value */
+        if((m * m) > x)
+            ub = m - 1;
+        else
+            lb = m + 1;
+    } while(ub >= lb);
+    
+    return lb - 1;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);



      

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:19 -0700, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> Hello everybody !!
>       The patch below is what i think is a better approach to
> compute int_sqrt().
> 
> What about it ?

Indeed, what about it?

How is it better;
 - is it cheaper
   - how so
   - on what platform

 - it is more accurate
   - who needs it

Please provide a little more information about why you suggest this
change.

> Thanks !!
> 
> ---
> --- a/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-04-17 08:19:44.000000000 +0530
> +++ b/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-07-02 11:37:01.000000000 +0530
> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> -
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  
> @@ -7,26 +6,21 @@
>   * @x: integer of which to calculate the sqrt
>   *
>   * A very rough approximation to the sqrt() function.
> + * Improved version from the previous one.

With the previuos one being gone, this comment adds little but
confusion..

>   */
>  unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
>  {
> -    unsigned long op, res, one;
> -
> -    op = x;
> -    res = 0;
> -
> -    one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
> -    while (one > op)
> -        one >>= 2;
> -
> -    while (one != 0) {
> -        if (op >= res + one) {
> -            op = op - (res + one);
> -            res = res +  2 * one;
> -        }
> -        res /= 2;
> -        one /= 4;
> -    }
> -    return res;
> +    unsigned long ub, lb, m;
> +    lb = 1;                /* lower bound */
> +    ub = (x >> 5) + 8;        /* upper bound */
> +    do {
> +        m = (ub + lb) >>  1;    /* middle value */
> +        if((m * m) > x)
> +            ub = m - 1;
> +        else
> +            lb = m + 1;
> +    } while(ub >= lb);
> +    
> +    return lb - 1;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Soumyadip Das Mahapatra]

> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

> To: Soumyadip Das Mahapatra <soumya.linux@yahoo.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:21:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c
> 
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:19 -0700, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> > Hello everybody !!
> >       The patch below is what i think is a better approach to
> > compute int_sqrt().
> > 
> > What about it ?
> 
> Indeed, what about it?
> 
> How is it better;
> - is it cheaper
>    - how so
>    - on what platform
> 
> - it is more accurate
>    - who needs it
> 
> Please provide a little more information about why you suggest this
> change.
> 
> > Thanks !!
> > 
> > ---
> > --- a/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-04-17 08:19:44.000000000 +0530
> > +++ b/lib/int_sqrt.c    2008-07-02 11:37:01.000000000 +0530
> > @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> > -
> >  #include 
> >  #include 
> >  
> > @@ -7,26 +6,21 @@
> >   * @x: integer of which to calculate the sqrt
> >   *
> >   * A very rough approximation to the sqrt() function.
> > + * Improved version from the previous one.
> 
> With the previuos one being gone, this comment adds little but
> confusion..
> 
> >   */
> >  unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
> >  {
> > -    unsigned long op, res, one;
> > -
> > -    op = x;
> > -    res = 0;
> > -
> > -    one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
> > -    while (one > op)
> > -        one >>= 2;
> > -
> > -    while (one != 0) {
> > -        if (op >= res + one) {
> > -            op = op - (res + one);
> > -            res = res +  2 * one;
> > -        }
> > -        res /= 2;
> > -        one /= 4;
> > -    }
> > -    return res;
> > +    unsigned long ub, lb, m;
> > +    lb = 1;                /* lower bound */
> > +    ub = (x >> 5) + 8;        /* upper bound */
> > +    do {
> > +        m = (ub + lb) >>  1;    /* middle value */
> > +        if((m * m) > x)
> > +            ub = m - 1;
> > +        else
> > +            lb = m + 1;
> > +    } while(ub >= lb);
> > +    
> > +    return lb - 1;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);
> > 

Thanks Peter for noticing :-)
Sorry, I should have it explained before. Really sorry
for that. Here are they...

0 It is better because 
         o it uses only one loop instead of two
         o contains no division operator (older version has two)
            which are surely comparatively slow task in computer

0 Currently find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep int_sqrt gives me this
        ....
        ./fs/nfs/write.c:       nfs_congestion_kb = (16*int_sqrt(totalram_pages)) << (PAGE_SHIFT-10);
        ./drivers/video/fbmon.c:        h_period = int_sqrt(h_period);
        ./mm/page_alloc.c:      min_free_kbytes = int_sqrt(lowmem_kbytes * 16);
        ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(cpu_time);
        ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(int_sqrt(run_time));
        ....
  So this function works in critical computing sections like frame-buffer, paging.
  Which means betterment of this function should not be ignored.
  Besides, if there is a better way to do things then why should not we do that ?

Anyways thanks :-)


      

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:35:56PM -0700, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> Thanks Peter for noticing :-)
> Sorry, I should have it explained before. Really sorry
> for that. Here are they...
> 
> 0 It is better because 
>          o it uses only one loop instead of two
>          o contains no division operator (older version has two)
>             which are surely comparatively slow task in computer
> 
> 0 Currently find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep int_sqrt gives me this
>         ....
>         ./fs/nfs/write.c:       nfs_congestion_kb = (16*int_sqrt(totalram_pages)) << (PAGE_SHIFT-10);
>         ./drivers/video/fbmon.c:        h_period = int_sqrt(h_period);
>         ./mm/page_alloc.c:      min_free_kbytes = int_sqrt(lowmem_kbytes * 16);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(cpu_time);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(int_sqrt(run_time));
>         ....
>   So this function works in critical computing sections like frame-buffer, paging.
>   Which means betterment of this function should not be ignored.
>   Besides, if there is a better way to do things then why should not we do that ?
> 
> Anyways thanks :-)

It is also very inaccurate:

int_sqrt(9380489) returns 3062 with the old code and 146574 with the new
code.  I wonder which one is closer to right.  It seems as soon as the
input is 2^22 or higher, the new code goes all to hell and starts
returning 2^16-1 or similarly silly values rather than 2^11-1 or
similar.

Here is how I tested:

(compiled with gcc -Wall -O2 -std=c99)

#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

#define BITS_PER_LONG 32

unsigned long old_int_sqrt(unsigned long x) {
	unsigned long op, res, one;

	op = x;
	res = 0;

	one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
	while (one > op)
		one >>= 2;

	while (one != 0) {
		if (op >= res + one) {
			op = op - (res + one);
			res = res +  2 * one;
		}
		res /= 2;
		one /= 4;
	}
	return res;
}

unsigned long new_int_sqrt(unsigned long x) {
	unsigned long ub, lb, m;
	lb = 1;				/* lower bound */
	ub = (x >> 5) + 8;		/* upper bound */
	do {
		m = (ub + lb) >>  1;	/* middle value */
		if((m * m) > x)
			ub = m - 1;
		else
			lb = m + 1;
	} while(ub >= lb);

	return lb - 1;
}

int main() {
	unsigned long i;
	unsigned long old;
	unsigned long new;
	for(i=0;i<10000000;i++) {
		old=old_int_sqrt(i);
		new=new_int_sqrt(i);
		if(new!=old) {
			printf("sqrt(%lu)= %lu(new)->%llu %lu(old)->%llu",i,new,(unsigned long long)new*(unsigned long long)new,old,(unsigned long long)old*(unsigned long long)old);
			if(llabs((unsigned long long)new*(unsigned long long)new - (unsigned long long)i) < llabs((unsigned long long)old*(unsigned long long)old - (unsigned long long)i)) {
				printf(" (new is best)\n");
			} else {
				printf(" (old is best)\n");
			}
		}
	}
	return 0;
}

Example output:
sqrt(9380468)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380469)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380470)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380471)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380472)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380473)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380474)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380475)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380476)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380477)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)
sqrt(9380478)= 146574(new)->21483937476 3062(old)->9375844 (old is best)

-- 
Len Sorensen

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Vadim Lobanov]

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 02:35:56 pm Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> > >   */
> > >  unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
> > >  {
> > > -    unsigned long op, res, one;
> > > -
> > > -    op = x;
> > > -    res = 0;
> > > -
> > > -    one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
> > > -    while (one > op)
> > > -        one >>= 2;
> > > -
> > > -    while (one != 0) {
> > > -        if (op >= res + one) {
> > > -            op = op - (res + one);
> > > -            res = res +  2 * one;
> > > -        }
> > > -        res /= 2;
> > > -        one /= 4;
> > > -    }
> > > -    return res;
> > > +    unsigned long ub, lb, m;
> > > +    lb = 1;                /* lower bound */
> > > +    ub = (x >> 5) + 8;        /* upper bound */
> > > +    do {
> > > +        m = (ub + lb) >>  1;    /* middle value */
> > > +        if((m * m) > x)
> > > +            ub = m - 1;
> > > +        else
> > > +            lb = m + 1;
> > > +    } while(ub >= lb);
> > > +
> > > +    return lb - 1;
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);
>
> 0 It is better because
>          o contains no division operator (older version has two)
>             which are surely comparatively slow task in computer

Actually, the old version has zero division operators; those are simply 
right-shifts.

-- Vadim Lobanov

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:05:56PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> It is also very inaccurate:
> 
> int_sqrt(9380489) returns 3062 with the old code and 146574 with the new
> code.  I wonder which one is closer to right.  It seems as soon as the
> input is 2^22 or higher, the new code goes all to hell and starts
> returning 2^16-1 or similarly silly values rather than 2^11-1 or
> similar.
> 
> Here is how I tested:
> 
> (compiled with gcc -Wall -O2 -std=c99)
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> 
> #define BITS_PER_LONG 32
> 
> unsigned long old_int_sqrt(unsigned long x) {
> 	unsigned long op, res, one;
> 
> 	op = x;
> 	res = 0;
> 
> 	one = 1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 2);
> 	while (one > op)
> 		one >>= 2;
> 
> 	while (one != 0) {
> 		if (op >= res + one) {
> 			op = op - (res + one);
> 			res = res +  2 * one;
> 		}
> 		res /= 2;
> 		one /= 4;
> 	}
> 	return res;
> }
> 
> unsigned long new_int_sqrt(unsigned long x) {
> 	unsigned long ub, lb, m;
> 	lb = 1;				/* lower bound */
> 	ub = (x >> 5) + 8;		/* upper bound */
> 	do {
> 		m = (ub + lb) >>  1;	/* middle value */
> 		if((m * m) > x)
This line overflows while the result is good if changed to:
 		if(((unsigned long long)m * (unsigned long long)m) > (unsigned long long)x)

Perhaps there is a better way to do this.

> 			ub = m - 1;
> 		else
> 			lb = m + 1;
> 	} while(ub >= lb);
> 
> 	return lb - 1;
> }
> 

-- 
Len Sorensen

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:35:56PM -0700, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> Thanks Peter for noticing :-)
> Sorry, I should have it explained before. Really sorry
> for that. Here are they...
> 
> 0 It is better because 
>          o it uses only one loop instead of two
>          o contains no division operator (older version has two)
>             which are surely comparatively slow task in computer
> 
> 0 Currently find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep int_sqrt gives me this
>         ....
>         ./fs/nfs/write.c:       nfs_congestion_kb = (16*int_sqrt(totalram_pages)) << (PAGE_SHIFT-10);
>         ./drivers/video/fbmon.c:        h_period = int_sqrt(h_period);
>         ./mm/page_alloc.c:      min_free_kbytes = int_sqrt(lowmem_kbytes * 16);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(cpu_time);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(int_sqrt(run_time));
>         ....
>   So this function works in critical computing sections like frame-buffer, paging.
>   Which means betterment of this function should not be ignored.
>   Besides, if there is a better way to do things then why should not we do that ?
> 
> Anyways thanks :-)

So so far the line:
        if((m * m) > x)
overflows easily in which case the result is wrong.

Also at least on my Athlon 2500, this new algorithm takes 3.5 times
longer than the old one to get result when doing all square roots from 0
to 200000000, which is no improvement.

-- 
Len Sorensen

Re: [PATCH] : A better approach to compute int_sqrt in lib/int_sqrt.c

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 14:35 -0700, Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:


> 0 It is better because 
>          o it uses only one loop instead of two
>          o contains no division operator (older version has two)
>             which are surely comparatively slow task in computer

As Lennart has said, gcc is smart enough to transform a division by a
power-of-two into shifts.

> 0 Currently find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep int_sqrt gives me this
>         ....
>         ./fs/nfs/write.c:       nfs_congestion_kb = (16*int_sqrt(totalram_pages)) << (PAGE_SHIFT-10);
>         ./drivers/video/fbmon.c:        h_period = int_sqrt(h_period);
>         ./mm/page_alloc.c:      min_free_kbytes = int_sqrt(lowmem_kbytes * 16);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(cpu_time);
>         ./mm/oom_kill.c:        s = int_sqrt(int_sqrt(run_time));
>         ....

fs/nfs/write.c is init code
mm/page_alloc.c is also init code
mm/oom_kill.c isn't a hot path

which leaves the fbmon case, which after a quick peek is setup code, so
not a hot path either.

So while that doesn't preclude us from changing it if you can indeed
show its a better implementation, its not on anybodies hit-list.