[LLVMdev] Finding safe thread suspension points while JIT-ing (was: Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.)

[Philip Reames]

Given the use case (user mode scheduling), I'm not going to oppose this 
proposal.  I would like to see a couple of things clarified 
documentation wise:
- When is this interface valid?  (i.e. the single thread case)
- If a context does have multiple threads, is this called once per 
thread?  Or once per thread group after internal coordination? (you can 
write this out of scope if desired)
- If we later introduce multiple threads, and this mechanism doesn't 
support it, what will happen?  Will the function just not be called?
- You hint at this already, but clarifying the state of the current 
context at a suspend point would be helpful.

Here's a possible draft that includes the above:
The may-suspend callback function may be called by LLVM to transfer 
control back to the client that invoked the LLVM compilation. This can 
be used to yield control of the thread, or perform periodic work needed 
by the client.  There is no guaranteed frequency at which callbacks must 
occur; in fact, the client is not guaranteed to ever receive this 
callback. It is at the sole discretion of LLVM to do so and only if it 
can guarantee that suspending the thread won't block any forward 
progress in other LLVM contexts.

At a suspend point, the state of the current LLVM context is 
intentionally undefined.  No assumptions about it can or should be 
made.  In particular, call backs into the context are not supported 
until the suspend function returns control to LLVM.  Other LLVM contexts 
are unaffected.

Currently, LLVM assumes one thread per LLVM context.  If, or when, we 
introduce multiple threads, this interface will not be available for 
contexts which opt-in to the thread pool model.  We may extend this 
interface at a later time to support thread pools, but for the moment, 
that use case is explicitly unsupported.


p.s. Bikeshed wise, might "yield" be a better term than "suspend" here?

Philip

On 05/13/2014 11:49 AM, Juergen Ributzka wrote:
> Sounds good. Lets get started by nailing down the C API and semantics 
> for this first.
>
> I mirrored the C API for the LLVM context diagnostic handler and used 
> Andy's suggested name for the callback.
> The opaque handle was suggested by Duncan and can provide optional 
> user specified information that is
> provided back during the callback (i.e. barrier, etc).
>
> Cheers,
> Juergen
>
> Core.h:
> typedef void (*LLVMMaySuspendCallback)(LLVMContextRef, void *);
>
> /**
>  * Set the may-suspend callback function for this context.
>  *
>  * @see LLVMContext::setMaySuspendCallback()
>  */
> void LLVMContextSetMaySuspendCallback(LLVMContextRef C,
>                                       LLVMMaySuspendCallback Callback,
>                                       void *OpaqueHandle);
>
> LLVMContext.h:
> /// \brief Registers a may-suspend callback with the context.
> ///
> /// The may-suspend callback function may be called by LLVM to transfer
> /// control back to the client that invoked the LLVM compilation. The 
> client
> /// is not garantueed to ever receive this callback. It is at the sole
> /// discretion of LLVM to do so and only if it can guarantee that 
> suspending
> /// the thread won't block any forward progress in other LLVM contexts.
> void setMaySuspendCallback(MaySuspendCallbackTy Callback, void 
> *OpaqueHandle);
>
> /// \brief Calls the may-suspend callback (if applicable).
> ///
> /// This transfers control back to the client, which may suspend the 
> current
> /// thread. Only call this method when LLVM doesn't hold any global 
> mutex or
> /// cannot block the execution in another LLVM context.
> void callMaySuspendCallback();
>
> On May 12, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com 
> <mailto:nlewycky at google.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Would you (or anyone) oppose a simple maySuspendContext()
>>     callback API? It would mean nothing more than the thread(s) for a
>>     given LLVM context can be suspended independent from other contexts.
>>
>>
>> I think this is the right approach. So a given thread hits a safe 
>> point, it optionally calls a "suspend check" or "i an safe to suspend 
>> right now" callback if set. It doesn't stop other threads, it doesn't 
>> continue until the function returns.
>>
>> If you want to stop all threads then the user callback may contain a 
>> barrier and count down how many threads have stopped until it sees 
>> all of them.
>>
>> Nick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140515/b28f7a32/attachment.html>