[llvm-dev] LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call - Doodle Poll
Tarique Islam via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon May 25 12:51:18 PDT 2020
Hi Hal,
If it is okay with the group, we can start looking into the LLVM codebase
for Metadata operations and discuss about the technical details related to
the scalability. In that case, we can start with the following.
./llvm/include/llvm/IR/Metadata.h
./llvm/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
./llvm/lib/Analysis/ScopedNoAliasAA.cpp
If needed, we can present some slides for a quick recap of the alias
representation.
Regarding the hierarchical representation, we can start with your patch
for scoped-noalias metadata.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9414665a3b0bd525f84d76e24048ca60ebe6c710
Regards,
Tarique Islam
XL Fortran Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Software Lab
tislam at ca.ibm.com (905) 413-3190
From: "Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov>
To: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>, "Doerfert, Johannes"
<jdoerfert at anl.gov>, Jeroen Dobbelaere
<Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>, "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org"
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Date: 2020-05-21 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call -
Doodle Poll
Great, thanks!
Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have
other things to which we can link for people to read?
-Hal
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM
To: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>; Doerfert, Johannes
<jdoerfert at anl.gov>; Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>;
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call - Doodle Poll
Hi Hal,
Thanks very much for scheduling the LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call. I
have added more details to the Google document.
Regards,
Tarique Islam
XL Fortran Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Software Lab
tislam at ca.ibm.com (905) 413-3190
Inactive hide details for "Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" ---2020-05-18
12:41:56 PM---To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-"Finkel, Hal J.
via llvm-dev" ---2020-05-18 12:41:56 PM---To join our call on Thursday, May
28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC please use this informati
From: "Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
To: Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>, Alina Sbirlea
<alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>
Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Doerfert,
Johannes" <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
Date: 2020-05-18 12:41 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call -
Doodle Poll
Sent by: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC
please use this information:
Meeting URL
https://bluejeans.com/643493129?src=join_info
Meeting ID
643 493 129
Want to dial in from a phone?
Dial one of the following numbers:
+1.312.216.0325 (US (Chicago))
+1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose))
+1.866.226.4650 (US Toll Free)
(see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers)
Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by #
Connecting from a room system?
Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode
On our agenda, we'll have:
1. Scalability challenges and other issues discovered with the current
infrastructure (especially, perhaps, with the noalias metadata).
2. Proposed solutions: progress, outstanding challenges, how to make
progress going forward.
We'll formulate the detailed agenda and take notes from the call using this
Google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybwEKDVtIbhIhK50qYtwKsL50K-NvB6LfuBsfepBZ9Y/edit?usp=sharing
A summary will then be sent to the mailing list after the call. If you
would like to add items to the agenda, please edit the document (or reply
to this email).
Thanks again,
Hal
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
From: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 10:24 AM
To: Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>; Alina Sbirlea
<alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Doerfert, Johannes
<jdoerfert at anl.gov>
Subject: Re: LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call - Doodle Poll
Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. The time that maximizes
availability is:
Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC.
I'll send out meeting information shortly.
-Hal
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Finkel, Hal
J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>; Alina Sbirlea
<alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Doerfert, Johannes
<jdoerfert at anl.gov>
Subject: [llvm-dev] LLVM Alias Analysis Technical Call - Doodle Poll
Hi, everyone,
We've had a number of discussions recently, including on the Flang
technical call, about potential improvements to LLVM's alias analysis to
support handling restrict and restrict-like semantics.
We would like to try having a call to discuss these issues further. Please,
if you're interested in joining, indicate your availability (prior to the
end of this week):
https://doodle.com/poll/evhwr2eyfvcf8ib3
Thanks again,
Hal
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Alina Sbirlea
via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Doerfert, Johannes
<jdoerfert at anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Full restrict support - status update
Hi Johannes et al,
Trying to revive this discussion, as the restrict support is relevant for
one of our teams.
Thank you,
Alina
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:16 PM Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
Hi Johannes et al,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
[..]
> On 11/06, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote:
> > >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev
> > [..]
> > > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible,
so I was
> wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent
that from
> happening?
> >
> > Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it.
> >
> > During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and
Johannes.
> > They had some extra remarks:
> > - (1) the restrict implementation deserves a separate document.
(I am
> working on that one)
> > - (2) they don't like the naming of 'noalias_sidechannel'.
> > - (3) they also have some other mechanisms in mind to add the
'sidechannel'
> to the load/store instructions
> > (and maybe to function calls, intrinsics; currently that is
handled through
> llvm.noalias.arg.guard)
> >
> > For (2) and (3), I am waiting for a proposal from them ;)
>
> I would like to see the restrict support be merged but, as Jeroen
> mentions above, I feel there are two design choices we have to
> overthink. Here are short descriptions to get some feedback from
the
> community:
>
> (A) Naming and restriction
>
> The name "sidechannel" is unfortunate, it has various negative
> connotations, e.g., the release notes that read:
> "LLVM 10.0 now has sidechannel support for your restrict pointer"
> will raise a lot of follow up questions.
>
> What I think we actually do, and what we should call it, is
"provenance"
> tracking.
>
> Now beyond the pure renaming of "sidechannel" into "provenance" (or
sth.
> similar) I want us to decouple provenance tracking from the noalias
> logic. Noalias/restrict is one use case in which (pointer)
provenance
> information is useful but not the only one. If we add some
mechanism to
> track provenance, let's make it generic and reusable. Note that the
> basic ideas are not much different to what the noalias RFC
proposed.
> The major difference would be that we have provenance information
and if
> that originates in an `llvm.restrict.decl` call we can use it for
> (no)alias queries.
"provenance" might indeed be a good name.
There is a big difference between a restrict declaration, and a
restrict usage:
- the declaration intrinsic (llvm.noalias.decl) is used to track in
the cfg the location
where the restrict variable was declared. This is important to handle
code motion,
merging, duplication in a correct way (inlining, loop unrolling, ...)
- the restrict usage intrinsics (llvm.noalias and llvm.side.noalias)
are used to indicate
that from that point on, restrict (noalias) properties are introduced
for that pointer.
They can exist without an associated 'llvm.noalias.decl' (when the
declaration is outside
the function.)
Given that, I assume that you mean 'llvm.provenance.noalias' (~
llvm.side.noalias) instead
of 'llvm.restrict.decl'.
>
>
>
> (B) Using operand bundles
>
> Right now, loads and stores are treated differently and given a new
> operand. Then there are intrinsics to decode other kinds of
information.
> As an alternative, we could allow operand bundles on all
instructions
> and use them to tie information to an instruction. The
"sidechannel"
> operand of a load would then look something like:
> load i32* %p [ "ptr_provenance"(%p_decl) ]
> and for a store we could have
> store i32** %p.addr, i32* %p [ "ptr_provenance"(%p_decl) ]
>
> The benefit is that we do not change the operand count (which
causes a
> lot of noise) but we still have to make sure ptr/value uses are not
> confused with operand bundle uses. We can attach the information to
more
> than load/store instructions, also to remove the need for some of
the
> intrinsics.
To me, operand bundles sound to be more or less equivalent to the
current
solution. It might also make the 'instruction cloning' easier, if we
can omit the
'ptr_provenance' there. The change of the number of operands caused
some
noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer
that refer to the
same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that
instruction
was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code
changes.
(like in parts of D68516 and D68518)
As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could
eliminate the need
for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal
pointer with the
side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to
put that information
somewhere. Or it should be propagated during inlining.
Care must be taken not to lose that information when the 'call' is
changed by optimizations
as, after inlining, that might result in wrong alias analysis
conclusions.
Are you thinking of "operand bundles" support for just
LoadInst/StoreInst, or for all
instructions ?
Greetings,
Jeroen Dobbelaere
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200525/2df9483f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200525/2df9483f/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list