GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

GH-39583: [C++] Fix the issue of ExecBatchBuilder when appending consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) - #39585

Merged
pitrou merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
zanmato1984:fix-39358
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

@zanmato1984

@zanmato1984zanmato1984 commented Jan 12, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale for this change

#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.

What changes are included in this PR?

Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.

Are these changes tested?

UT included.

Are there any user-facing changes?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hi @pitrou , I wonder if you could help to review this PR as this is very similar to its predecessor #39234 reviewed by you. Much appreciate it!

@mapleFU
mapleFU requested a review from pitrouJanuary 12, 2024 17:23
Comment on lines -391 to -393
if (column_metadata.fixed_length == 0) {
num_rows_left = std::max(num_rows_left, 8) - 8;
++num_bytes_skipped;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was for boolean data, right? Is it ok to remove this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed size types of length 0/1/2/4/8 are using element-wise copying, i.e., no "word-wise then tail-bytes" copying. They don't go to this method:

case0:
CollectBits(source->buffers[1]->data(), source->offset, target->mutable_data(1),
num_rows_before, num_rows_to_append, row_ids);
break;
case1:
Visit(source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
target->mutable_data(1)[num_rows_before + i] = *ptr;
});
break;
case2:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint16_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint16_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case4:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint32_t*>(ptr);
});
break;
case8:
Visit(
source, num_rows_to_append, row_ids,
[&](int i, constuint8_t* ptr, uint32_t num_bytes) {
reinterpret_cast<uint64_t*>(target->mutable_data(1))[num_rows_before + i] =
*reinterpret_cast<constuint64_t*>(ptr);
});
break;

So I think we can simplify this method by not specially dealing with boolean type, thus the added ARROW_DCHECK several lines above.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

@zanmato1984

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@zanmato1984 Can you rebase on git main?

Sure. Done.

@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@github-actions crossbow submit -g cpp

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Revision: 20d9a38

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-56dd6fe473

TaskStatus
test-alpine-linux-cppGitHub Actions
test-build-cpp-fuzzGitHub Actions
test-conda-cppGitHub Actions
test-conda-cpp-valgrindAzure
test-cuda-cppGitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-amd64GitHub Actions
test-debian-11-cpp-i386GitHub Actions
test-fedora-38-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-bundledGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-minimal-with-formatsGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-20.04-cpp-thread-sanitizerGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cppGitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-20GitHub Actions
test-ubuntu-22.04-cpp-no-threadingGitHub Actions

@pitroupitrou left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you @zanmato1984 . The original code quality is quite bad but this improves things slightly.

@pitrou
pitrou merged commit 1dc3b81 into apache:mainJan 17, 2024
@pitroupitrou removed the awaiting committer review Awaiting committer review label Jan 17, 2024
@pitrou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd If you do another RC, this would be a good candidate fix to add.

@conbench-apache-arrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 6 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 1dc3b81.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.

dgreiss pushed a commit to dgreiss/arrow that referenced this pull request Feb 19, 2024
…g consecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (apache#39585)
### Rationale for this change
apache#39583 is a subsequent issue of apache#32570 (fixed by apache#39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of apache#39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: apache#39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
raulcd pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2024
…ecutive tail rows with the same id may exceed buffer boundary (for fixed size types) (#39585)
### Rationale for this change
#39583 is a subsequent issue of #32570 (fixed by #39234). The last issue and fixed only resolved var length types. It turns out fixed size types have the same issue.
### What changes are included in this PR?
Do the same fix of #39234 for fixed size types.
### Are these changes tested?
UT included.
### Are there any user-facing changes?
* Closes: #39583
Authored-by: zanmato1984 <zanmato1984@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[C++] Segmentation fault in ExecBatchBuilder

2 participants

@zanmato1984@pitrou