[llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev]

Hi Taewook,

I had a better fix for this approved (D23015), but when I went to merge
this with the new LTO API I committed for pcc last week I discovered that
his new API already has the same effect. I will update the bug with this
info as well. Can you confirm that with a compiler built after 278338 that
this problem no longer occurs?

Also, any luck on a smaller test case for the -g issue? Now that I have
pcc's patches merged I will try again to see if I can trigger it, probably
with some larger internal benchmarks. But if you can give me more details
on that problem that would be great.

Let me know if you run into any other issues too!

Thanks,
Teresa

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, good to know.
>>
>> Any luck on a smaller test case for either of the problems?
>>
>
>> I tried building all the C/C++ SPEC cpu2006 benchmarks with -g -flto=thin
>> at head and didn't get the failure. Let me try to look into how the debug
>> metadata is normally dropped from the imported decl. In the meantime, could
>> you find out the answers to the questions I had (see below) about the
>> linkage type of the _foo symbol and when the verifier was being run when it
>> hit the failures? Also, was _foo imported into the module?
>>
>> Also, I am going to try to see if I can construct a test case to trigger
>> the original problem. But do you want to try to make forward progress by
>> changing your local version of LLVM so that instead of asserting in
>> MustPreserveGV, we instead conservatively return true if it isn't found in
>> the map?
>>
>
> I have a small test case to repro the original problem.
>
> I think that the conservative fix I describe above is probably the right
> approach - we could also try stripping off any .\d+ suffix and querying the
> module index with that. It works but I am a little wary as the variable
> could originally be named with a .\d+ suffix as well and we could
> inadvertently use the index for a different variable. Although they should
> both have index entries, but I'd rather do something conservatively correct
> rather than cause a subtle bug due to using the wrong index entry.
>
> Will update the bugzilla entry and send a patch.
>
> I may still need help getting a test case for the second problem (the
> debug metadata on the decl), although I might not be able to look at that
> for a couple days.
>
> Teresa
>
>
>> Teresa
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, if I drop the debug flag then the original problem (assertion
>>> failure) comes back.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Taewook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM
>>>
>>> *To: *Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com>
>>> *Cc: *via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())
>>> failed in FunctionImport.cpp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I
>>> restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up
>>> the build artifacts :(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So a couple things were added to gold since then, index-based
>>> linkonce/weak resolution and some more aggressive internalization. I don't
>>> think either of these would have made the original problem go away, so I'm
>>> guessing that the latter provoked the new problem (in combination with
>>> pcc's earlier change to allow metadata attachments on decls that added that
>>> verifier assert). Presumably we started internalizing the promoted global,
>>> and something (presumably a later pass) then dropped the symbol. Let me see
>>> if I can provoke that particular issue with a debug ThinLTO build of SPEC
>>> (recently I have been testing non-debug). In the meantime, can you drop
>>> your debug flag and see if the first problem comes back?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Taewook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To: *Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com>
>>> *Cc: *via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())
>>> failed in FunctionImport.cpp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Teresa,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global
>>> materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a
>>> function definition. As I pasted on my first email,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ; Materializable
>>>
>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>>>
>>> define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2
>>> personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> is materialized to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>>>
>>> declare void @foo(%"type1"*) unnamed_addr #2 align 2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Inside IRLinker::linkGlobalValueProto, the materialized value is
>>> returned from getLinkedToGlobal(SGV) and assigned to DGV. However, as
>>> ForAlias is true and ShouldLink is false, DGV becomes nullptr later, and
>>> NewGV is created from copyGlobalValueProto(SGV, ShouldLink) call.
>>> Therefore, returned value from linkGlobalValueProto is different from the
>>> value obtained by ValueMap.lookup(SGV) in IRLinker::materialize.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, sorry, somehow I completely missed the fact that it was brought in
>>> as a decl when I looked this morning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I updated LLVM to the latest version in SVN this morning, and the
>>> assertion failure is gone. Instead, it ends up with broken module found
>>> errors:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Global is external, but doesn't have external or weak linkage!
>>>
>>> void (%2*, %2*, i32)* @"_foo.llvm.E5F1952C"
>>>
>>> function declaration may not have a !dbg attachment
>>>
>>> void (%2*, %2*, i32)* @"_foo.llvm.E5F1952C"
>>>
>>> LLVM ERROR: Broken module found, compilation aborted!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This looks like a promoted local from the name. What is the linkage
>>> type? Is this the verifier run right after the importing pass?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm guessing the first problem went away due to luck, as I can't think
>>> of any specific change that would have affected it. Is this from the same
>>> module?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know what SVN revision were you at before, even roughly?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope this provides additional clues to fix the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Taewook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, July 29, 2016 at 7:05 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To: *Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com>
>>> *Cc: *via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())
>>> failed in FunctionImport.cpp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Teresa,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it
>>> hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with
>>> gold linker.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I need to see a smaller test case, looking through the code I'm
>>> not sure how we ended up in this situation. See analysis below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Taewook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM
>>> *To: *Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com>
>>> *Cc: *via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())
>>> failed in FunctionImport.cpp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Taewook,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running
>>> ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in
>>> llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that the assertion fails because it fails to recover the
>>> "original name" of the global value. ModuleSummaryIndex::getOriginalNameBeforePromote
>>> attempts to get the original name by stripping .llvm.{HASH}, but what I
>>> observe is that ".1" is still appended to the expected original name.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then where this extra ".1" comes from? It is appended when the global
>>> value is materialized. IRLinker::materialize function calls
>>> IRLinker::linkGlobalValueProto function, and inside that function if DGV is
>>> nullptr or ShouldLink is true then IRLinker::copyGlobalValueProto function
>>> is called to create a global variable in the destination module that
>>> corresponds to SGV. I found that newly created global variable has the
>>> extra ".1" added to the name of the SGV.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When this happens? I don't have a complete understanding but I observed
>>> that the same global value is materialized twice during the single
>>> invocation of IRLinker::run, once with GlobalValueMaterializer and once
>>> with LocalValueMaterializer. First, the global value
>>>
>>> Looking at the IRLinker, it appears this second (local) copy should only
>>> be created if there was no copy already linked in from the same source
>>> module:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In IRLinker::linkGlobalValueProto, we should find the DGV created by
>>> the GlobalValueMaterializer for the same SGV (first find it by name, then
>>> if ShouldLink==true, we should find it in ValueMap and return that entry,
>>> or if ShouldLink==false, since ForAlias=true we should return null.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then when linkGlobalValueProto returns, in IRLinker::materialize there
>>> is specific handling for this case:
>>>
>>>   // When linking a global for an alias, it will always be linked.
>>> However we
>>>   // need to check if it was not already scheduled to satify a reference
>>> from a
>>>   // regular global value initializer. We know if it has been schedule
>>> if the
>>>   // "New" GlobalValue that is mapped here for the alias is the same as
>>> the one
>>>   // already mapped. If there is an entry in the ValueMap but the value
>>> is
>>>   // different, it means that the value already had a definition in the
>>>   // destination module (linkonce for instance), but we need a new
>>> definition
>>>   // for the alias ("New" will be different.
>>>   if (ForAlias && ValueMap.lookup(SGV) == New)
>>>     return New;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAICT the only way we should be creating a new local copy is if foo()
>>> already had a copy in the dest module. But when we call ThinLTO
>>> internalization we are doing so before any function importing. The
>>> gold-plugin should have linked the module being compiled in the ThinLTO
>>> backend into an empty module from thinLTOBackendTask, so we should not
>>> already have a copy of foo() in the dest module.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I must be missing something...in lieu of a smaller test case, can you
>>> trace through what happens when we call linkGlobalValueProto for the local
>>> materializer, and see why we don't find the copy of SGV already
>>> materialized by the global materializer which should be in the ValueMap?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the IRLinker will append an integer if it encounters a naming
>>> conflict. Normally this would happen in full LTO, but I guess is happening
>>> here since we are linking twice due to the alias.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ; Materializable
>>>
>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>>>
>>> define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2
>>> personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {}
>>>
>>> (I renamed the function and comdat)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> is materialized with GlobalValueMaterializer, (so the
>>> IRLinker::materialize function is called with ForAlias == false), and the
>>> materialized value is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>>>
>>> declare void @foo(%"type1"*) unnamed_addr #2 align 2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, later, the same value is materialized again with
>>> LocalValueMaterializer (so ForAlias == true for IRLinker::materialize), and
>>> the materialized value is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
>>>
>>> define internal void @foo.1(%"type 0x7efb6ee89d80"*) unnamed_addr #2
>>> comdat($comdat1) align 2 personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 !dbg
>>> !12345 {
>>>
>>>   // function definition
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> (here, “type 0x7efb6ee89d80” is not “type1” )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So for me it seems that we need a mechanism to retrieve the original
>>> name of the global value even when it is renamed during the
>>> materialization. I submitted the bug report as well (
>>> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28760)
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__llvm.org_bugs_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D28760-29&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=kOsLCgQzH7N8ptZ7diJD9g&m=XtlNH01OW0mwOi0no2wur-HO6RY5szj-dgWaIcCki-k&s=9pGLGnxeOI3J3lvx9-ayiZJUImAefSzcGGJN5xo9_Kc&e=>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, we are already trying to handle a similar case in that
>>> lambda (see the comment about weak values linked in as a local copy due to
>>> an alias). However, we weren't anticipating the original weak value being
>>> linked in as well, which is causing the rename.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a small reproducer? Is this with gold? I need to think about
>>> the best way to handle this case. One way of course is to conservatively
>>> return true if we can't find it in the map, but I don't love that since we
>>> may miss other cases that need to be handled.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Taewook
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=CwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=kOsLCgQzH7N8ptZ7diJD9g&m=XtlNH01OW0mwOi0no2wur-HO6RY5szj-dgWaIcCki-k&s=eA2ODuBrwjiWfuW-_sPfCVr1H774iHS5j89ydb7KY2E&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Teresa Johnson |
>>>
>>>  Software Engineer |
>>>
>>>  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>
>>>  408-460-2413
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Teresa Johnson |
>>>
>>>  Software Engineer |
>>>
>>>  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>
>>>  408-460-2413
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Teresa Johnson |
>>>
>>>  Software Engineer |
>>>
>>>  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>
>>>  408-460-2413
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Teresa Johnson |
>>>
>>>  Software Engineer |
>>>
>>>  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>
>>>  408-460-2413
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
>> 408-460-2413
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
> 408-460-2413
>



-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160815/71e5d30a/attachment.html>