From: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
To: Jason@zx2c4.com, lkml@sdf.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] random: add get_random_max() function
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:28:13 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201903250028.x2P0SDH3026861@sdf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9p3TR6ESekKRQxFsfQe3rZp7T4-4WLOn-SL98zUnAo2DQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 21:47:50 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> I generally use a slightly simpler algorithm in various different projects:
>
> //[0, bound)
> static unsigned long random_bounded(unsigned long bound)
> {
> unsigned long ret;
> const unsigned long max_mod_bound = (1 + ~bound) % bound;
>
> if (bound < 2)
> return 0;
> do
> ret = random_integer();
> while (ret < max_mod_bound);
> return ret % bound;
> }
>
> Is the motivation behind using Lemire that you avoid the division (via
> the modulo) in favor of a multiplication?
Yes. If we define eps = max_mod_bound * ldexp(1.0, -BITS_PER_LONG) as
the probability of one retry, and retries = eps / (1 - eps) as the
expected number of retries, then both algorithms take 1+retries
random_integer()s.
The above agorithm takes 2 divisions, always. Divides are slow, and
usually not pipelined, so two in short succession gets a latency penalty.
Lemire's mutiplicative algorithm takes 1 multiplication on the fast
path (probability 1 - 2*eps on average), 1 additional division on the slow
path (probability 2*eps), and 1 multiplication per retry.
In the common case when bound is much less than ULONG_MAX, eps is
tiny and the fast path is taken almost all the time, and it's
a huge win.
Even in the absolute worst case of bound = ULONG_MAX/2 + 2 when
eps ~ 0.5 (2 multiplies, 0.5 divide; there's no 2*eps penalty in
this case), it's faster as long as 2 mutiplies cost less than 1.5
divides.
I you want simpler code, we could omit the fast path and stil get
a speedup. But a predictable branch for a divide seemed like
a worthwhile trade.
(FYI, this all came about as a side project of a kernel-janitor project
to replace "prandom_u32() % range" by "prandom_u32() * range >> 32".
I'm also annoyed that get_random_u32() and get_random_u64() have
separate buffers, even if EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, but that's
a separate complaint.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-25 0:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201903241244.x2OCiL8P011277@sdf.org>
2019-03-24 20:47 ` [RFC PATCH] random: add get_random_max() function Jason A. Donenfeld
2019-03-25 0:28 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2019-03-25 1:14 ` George Spelvin
[not found] ` <201903270655.x2R6tDjo020894@sdf.org>
2019-03-28 10:00 ` [RFC PATCH v2] " George Spelvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201903250028.x2P0SDH3026861@sdf.org \
--to=lkml@sdf.org \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox