v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 99b2eab335c1592c925d8143979c8e9e81e1575f.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE
Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
There was a previous thread[1], but I think it needs some wider discussion. I brought up an issue where GCC in combination with FORTIFY_SOURCE[2] causes a perf regression for logical tapes after introducing LogicalTapeSetExtend()[3]. Unfortunately, FORTIFY_SOURCE is used by default on ubuntu. I have not observed the problem with clang. There is no reason why the change should trigger the regression, but it does. The slowdown is due to GCC switching to an inlined version of memcpy() for LogicalTapeWrite() at logtape.c:768. The change[3] seems to have little if anything to do with that. GCC's Object Size Checking[4] doc says: "There are built-in functions added for many common string operation functions, e.g., for memcpy __builtin___memcpy_chk built-in is provided. This built-in has an additional last argument, which is the number of bytes remaining in the object the dest argument points to or (size_t) -1 if the size is not known. The built-in functions are optimized into the normal string functions like memcpy if the last argument is (size_t) -1 or if it is known at compile time that the destination object will not be overflowed..." In other words, if GCC knows the size of the object it tries to either verify at compile time that it will never overflow, or it inserts a runtime check. But if it doesn't know the size of the object, there's nothing it can do so it just uses memcpy() like normal. Knowing the destination buffer size at compile time would be impossible (before or after my change) because palloc() doesn't have the alloc_size attribute[5] specified. Even if it is specified (which I tried), and if the compiler was smart enough (which it's not), it could still only come up with a maximum size because the offset changes at runtime. Regardless, I tried printing out the results of: __builtin_object_size (lt->buffer + lt->pos, 0) and the result is always -1 (unknown). I have attached a workaround patch which restores the performance, and it's isolatted to logtape.c, but it's ugly (and not a little bit). The questions are: 1. Is my analysis correct? 2. What is the scale of this problem? What about other platforms or compilers? Are there other cases in PostgreSQL that might suffer from the use of FORTIFY_SOURCE? 3. Even if this is the compiler's fault, should we still fix it? 4. Does the attached fix have any dangers of regressing on other compilers/platforms? 5. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better fix? Regards, Jeff Davis [1] https://postgr.es/m/91ca648cfd1f99bf07981487a7d81a1ec926caad.camel@j-davis.com [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security_Features?rd=Security/Features#Compile_Time_Buffer_Checks_.28FORTIFY_SOURCE.29 [3] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=24d85952 [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Object-Size-Checking.html [5] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-alloc_005fsize-function-attribute
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: