-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 100
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
This reverts commit 2ea67f3. Apparently the numbers that I was computing for heapsort were not correct and were for the closed quick-select algorithm. It seems that the heapsort compute unit exceeds the previous implementation.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
2ea67f3
commit 2c6c836
Showing
13 changed files
with
561 additions
and
239 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,104 +1,112 @@ | ||
| #include "price_model.h" | ||
| #include "../util/avg.h" /* For avg_2_int64 */ | ||
|
|
||
| /* | ||
| * In-place bottom-up Heapsort implementation optimized for minimal compute unit usage in BPF. | ||
| * | ||
| * Initially it creates a max heap in linear time and then to get ascending | ||
| * order it swaps the root with the last element and then sifts down the root. | ||
| * | ||
| * The number of comparisions in average case is nlgn + O(1) and in worst case is | ||
| * 1.5nlgn + O(n). | ||
| * | ||
| * There are a lot of (j-1) or (j+1) math in the code which can be optimized by | ||
| * thinking of a as 1-based array. Fortunately, BPF compiler optimizes that for us. | ||
| */ | ||
| void heapsort(int64_t * a, uint64_t n) { | ||
| if (n <= 1) return; | ||
|
|
||
| /* | ||
| * This is a bottom-up heapify which is linear in time. | ||
| */ | ||
| for (uint64_t i = n / 2 - 1;; --i) { | ||
| int64_t root = a[i]; | ||
| uint64_t j = i * 2 + 1; | ||
| while (j < n) { | ||
| if (j + 1 < n && a[j] < a[j + 1]) ++j; | ||
| if (root >= a[j]) break; | ||
| a[(j - 1) / 2] = a[j]; | ||
| j = j * 2 + 1; | ||
| } | ||
| a[(j - 1) / 2] = root; | ||
|
|
||
| if (i == 0) break; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for (uint64_t i = n - 1; i > 0; --i) { | ||
| int64_t tmp = a[0]; | ||
| a[0] = a[i]; | ||
| a[i] = tmp; | ||
|
|
||
| int64_t root = a[0]; | ||
| uint64_t j = 1; | ||
| while (j < i) { | ||
| if (j + 1 < i && a[j] < a[j + 1]) ++j; | ||
| if (root >= a[j]) break; | ||
| a[(j - 1) / 2] = a[j]; | ||
| j = j * 2 + 1; | ||
| } | ||
| a[(j - 1) / 2] = root; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| #define SORT_NAME int64_sort_ascending | ||
| #define SORT_KEY_T int64_t | ||
| #include "../sort/tmpl/sort_stable.c" | ||
|
|
||
| /* | ||
| * Find the 25, 50, and 75 percentiles of the given quotes using heapsort. | ||
| * | ||
| * This implementation optimizes the price_model_core function for minimal compute unit usage in BPF. | ||
| * | ||
| * In Solana, each BPF instruction costs 1 unit of compute and is much different than a native code | ||
| * execution time. Here are some of the differences: | ||
| * 1. There is no cache, so memory access is much more expensive. | ||
| * 2. The instruction set is very minimal, and there are only 10 registers available. | ||
| * 3. The BPF compiler is not very good at optimizing the code. | ||
| * 4. The stack size is limited and having extra stack frame has high overhead. | ||
| * | ||
| * This implementation is chosen among other implementations such as merge-sort, quick-sort, and quick-select | ||
| * because it is very fast, has small number of instructions, and has a very small memory footprint by being | ||
| * in-place and is non-recursive and has a nlogn worst-case time complexity. | ||
| */ | ||
| int64_t * | ||
| price_model_core( uint64_t cnt, | ||
| int64_t * quote, | ||
| int64_t * _p25, | ||
| int64_t * _p50, | ||
| int64_t * _p75) { | ||
| heapsort(quote, cnt); | ||
| int64_t * _p75, | ||
| void * scratch ) { | ||
|
|
||
| /* Sort the quotes. The sorting implementation used here is a highly | ||
| optimized mergesort (merge with an unrolled insertion sorting | ||
| network small n base cases). The best case is ~0.5 n lg n compares | ||
| and the average and worst cases are ~n lg n compares. | ||
| While not completely data oblivious, this has quite low variance in | ||
| operation count practically and this is _better_ than quicksort's | ||
| average case and quicksort's worst case is a computational | ||
| denial-of-service and timing attack vulnerable O(n^2). Unlike | ||
| quicksort, this is also stable (but this stability does not | ||
| currently matter ... it might be a factor in future models). | ||
| A data oblivious sorting network approach might be viable here with | ||
| and would have a completely deterministic operations count. It | ||
| currently isn't used as the best known practical approaches for | ||
| general n have a worse algorithmic cost (O( n (lg n)^2 )) and, | ||
| while the application probably doesn't need perfect obliviousness, | ||
| mergesort is still moderately oblivious and the application can | ||
| benefit from mergesort's lower operations cost. (The main drawback | ||
| of mergesort over quicksort is that it isn't in place, but memory | ||
| footprint isn't an issue here.) | ||
| Given the operations cost model (e.g. cache friendliness is not | ||
| incorporated), a radix sort might be viable here (O(n) in best / | ||
| average / worst). It currently isn't used as we expect invocations | ||
| with small-ish n to be common and radix sort would be have large | ||
| coefficients on the O(n) and additional fixed overheads that would | ||
| make it more expensive than mergesort in this regime. | ||
| Note: price_model_cnt_valid( cnt ) implies | ||
| int64_sort_ascending_cnt_valid( cnt ) currently. | ||
| Note: consider filtering out "NaN" quotes (i.e. INT64_MIN)? */ | ||
|
|
||
| int64_t * sort_quote = int64_sort_ascending_stable( quote, cnt, scratch ); | ||
|
|
||
| /* Extract the p25 | ||
| There are many variants with subtle tradeoffs here. One option is | ||
| to interpolate when the ideal p25 is bracketed by two samples (akin | ||
| to the p50 interpolation above when the number of quotes is even). | ||
| That is, for p25, interpolate between quotes floor((cnt-2)/4) and | ||
| ceil((cnt-2)/4) with the weights determined by cnt mod 4. The | ||
| current preference is to not do that as it is slightly more | ||
| complex, doesn't exactly always minimize the current loss function | ||
| and is more exposed to the confidence intervals getting skewed by | ||
| bum quotes with the number of quotes is small. | ||
| Another option is to use the inside quote of the above pair. That | ||
| is, for p25, use quote ceil((cnt-2)/4) == floor((cnt+1)/4) == | ||
| (cnt+1)>>2. The current preference is not to do this as, though | ||
| this has stronger bum quote robustness, it results in p25==p50==p75 | ||
| when cnt==3. (In this case, the above wants to do an interpolation | ||
| between quotes 0 and 1 to for the p25 and between quotes 1 and 2 | ||
| for the p75. But limiting to just the inside quote results in | ||
| p25/p50/p75 all using the median quote.) | ||
| A tweak to this option, for p25, is to use floor(cnt/4) == cnt>>2. | ||
| This is simple, has the same asymptotic behavior for large cnt, has | ||
| good behavior in the cnt==3 case and practically as good bum quote | ||
| rejection in the moderate cnt case. */ | ||
|
|
||
| /* Extract the p25 */ | ||
| uint64_t p25_idx = cnt >> 2; | ||
| *_p25 = quote[p25_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| *_p25 = sort_quote[p25_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| /* Extract the p50 */ | ||
|
|
||
| if( (cnt & (uint64_t)1) ) { /* Odd number of quotes */ | ||
|
|
||
| uint64_t p50_idx = cnt >> 1; /* ==ceil((cnt-1)/2) */ | ||
| *_p50 = quote[p50_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| *_p50 = sort_quote[p50_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| } else { /* Even number of quotes (at least 2) */ | ||
|
|
||
| uint64_t p50_idx_right = cnt >> 1; /* == ceil((cnt-1)/2)> 0 */ | ||
| uint64_t p50_idx_left = p50_idx_right - (uint64_t)1; /* ==floor((cnt-1)/2)>=0 (no overflow/underflow) */ | ||
|
|
||
| int64_t vl = quote[p50_idx_left]; | ||
| int64_t vr = quote[p50_idx_right]; | ||
| int64_t vl = sort_quote[p50_idx_left ]; | ||
| int64_t vr = sort_quote[p50_idx_right]; | ||
|
|
||
| /* Compute the average of vl and vr (with floor / round toward | ||
| negative infinity rounding and without possibility of | ||
| intermediate overflow). */ | ||
|
|
||
| *_p50 = avg_2_int64( vl, vr ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /* Extract the p75 (this is the mirror image of the p25 case) */ | ||
|
|
||
| uint64_t p75_idx = cnt - ((uint64_t)1) - p25_idx; | ||
| *_p75 = quote[p75_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| return quote; | ||
| *_p75 = sort_quote[p75_idx]; | ||
|
|
||
| return sort_quote; | ||
| } |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.