[LLVMdev] Thoughts on maintaining liveness information for stackmaps
kmod at dropbox.com
Tue Oct 14 00:52:11 PDT 2014
I think what's happening is BranchFolder::MaintainLiveIns is using a
forward analysis on top of these missing kill flags, and updating the
BB-live-ins/live-outs with an incorrect set of registers. Then when the
stackmaps liveness analysis happens, it's not doing anything wrong, but it
starts with the wrong set of live registers and will propagate those to the
point of the patchpoint/stackmap.
For now it might be possible to just fix BranchFolder (and also
TailDuplicatePass::TailDuplicate) to use a backwards analysis as well, but
if we really wanted to make sure that the liveness information was accurate
when the stackmaps code looks at it, wouldn't we need to get rid of
anything that supports forward liveness analysis?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Modzelewski <kmod at dropbox.com> wrote:
> Hi all, I've run into a couple bugs recently that affected stackmap
> liveness analysis in various ways:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19224 - function arguments stay live
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21265 - eflags can end up as a live
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21266 - %rip can end up as a live out
> The first two have nothing to do with stackmaps specifically but just end
> up affecting it; the last two will crash the stackmaps code. I think my
> takeaway is that at this late point in the pipeline, the stackmaps liveness
> code has to be the main consumer of this information, otherwise these kinds
> of bugs/behavior would have been noticed. So fixing them might mostly be
> in the interest of the stackmaps code, and I'm wondering if even if we do
> classify these as bugs and fix them, if there would be a runtime cost paid
> by non-stackmaps-using code. I'm also worried that there might be more
> than these three bugs and it might be a bit of a losing battle if getting
> this perfectly right isn't useful beyond just stackmaps.
> So I guess my question is: should we try to fix all these issues, or
> accept that there can potentially be some extra registers in the live-outs
> set when we get around to emitting the stackmaps section? (Or another
> option?) By "accepting the possibility", I'm meaning that we could filter
> out non-feasible registers like eflags and rip, and consumers would have to
> accept that there might be extra registers that are included unnecessarily
> (which can already happen).
> I created a hacky little patch that simply ignores bogus registers when
> doing the liveness calculation:
> Not sure if this is the kind of approach we would like to go with, but so
> far in my very limited testing it seems to be ok and at least things don't
> crash. What do you guys think?
> The %RIP problem is a straightforward bug resulting from the X86 target
> lying to LLVM about RIP being a register. The fix is that LivePhysRegs
> should not track reserved regs. But before fixing that, we have to be
> careful about which registers stackmap clients are expected to preserve "no
> matter what", and the rest of the LLVM reserved regs (e.g. base pointer)
> should just be unconditionally added to the live set. We can continue that
> discussion in the PR.
> LivePhysRegs.stepBackward should be completely valid at any point, so if
> there are bugs they need to be fixed. LivePhysRegs.stepForward is
> conservative and relies on KILL flags so should only be used very early in
> the MI pipeline for convenience as an optimization.
> StackMapLivenessAnalysis uses stepBackward so should not depend on KILL
> flags at all. LivePhysRegs should not modify any MI operands, so KILL flags
> shouldn’t be getting “removed” by anything related to stackmaps or liveness.
> Note that we would like to move to a world where KILL flags are completely
> removed before allocating physical registers. Subsequent passes can use a
> liveness utility to get the same information in a robust way.
> Unfortunately, some target specific passes still work better with KILL
> flags and no one seems to be working on migrating them. Although we can't
> eliminate KILL flags from late passes yet, they are not required, and
> passes can safely drop them - in fact a pass must either ensure the flags
> are accurate or drop them.
> I think it’s nice that the StackMap implementation forces all live
> registers to be dwarf encodable. It’s kind of important that LLVM ensure
> that EFLAGS are not live across a patchpoint!
> I’m honestly not sure why you’re hitting the first two bugs (function
> args/eflags). I think the liveness and stackmap code is doing the right
> thing here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev