[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Replacing the default CRT allocator on Windows

Wed Jul 8 13:12:55 PDT 2020

1. Completing the Windows port requires porting the platform specific
functions to Windows, probably updating some long vs longlong situations,
size_t maybe, etc. An old CL (https://reviews.llvm.org/D42519) for the
non-standalone version of Scudo shows the gist of it. A good part of having
a Windows dev environment for LLVM/compilert-rt that I do not have anymore.
2. Scudo is meant to be more secure by default and performance might not be
fully on par with allocators that don't check much. The allocator is highly
configurable though, and I am pretty sure we can get close. The rest is all
a matter of balancing RSS vs performance vs security which is a tricky
business. It offers a couple of model of caching per thread (either unique
or shared pool), configurable buckets/bins, and so on.

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:48 AM Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>
wrote:

> That sounds like an interesting idea. What does it take to complete/land
> the Windows port? Do you think the performance would be equivalent to that
> of the allocators mentioned in the review
> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71786>?
>
>
>
> *De :* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *De la part de* Mitch
> Phillips via llvm-dev
> *Envoyé :* July 7, 2020 5:15 PM
> *À :* Adrian McCarthy <amccarth at google.com>; Kostya Kortchinsky <
> kostyak at google.com>
> *Cc :* LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Objet :* Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Replacing the default CRT
> allocator on Windows
>
>
>
> +Kostya Kortchinsky <kostyak at google.com>
>
>
>
> w.r.t the licensing problem of a new allocator - have you considered using
> Scudo? The version in compiler-rt *is* the upstream (and thus fully
> licensed with LLVM), and it's what we use as the production allocator in
> Android. The docs <https://llvm.org/docs/ScudoHardenedAllocator.html> are
> a little out of date (see the source code in //compiler-rt/lib/scudo/
> *standalone* for the bleeding edge), and it doesn't support Windows out
> of the box currently - but there have been some successful experiments
> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D42519> to get it working. I don't imagine that
> getting full support would be more challenging than setting some sort of
> frankenbuild up. From Kostya (who maintains Scudo), "I don't think the port
> is going to be a lot of effort".
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 2:03 PM Mitch Phillips <mitchp at google.com> wrote:
>
> Bearing in mind that the ASan allocator isn't particularly suited to
> detecting memory corruption unless you compile LLVM/Clang with ASan
> instrumentation as well. I don't imagine anybody would be proposing making
> the debug build for Windows be ASan-ified by default.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:49 PM Adrian McCarthy via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Asan and the Debug CRT take different approaches, but the problems they
> cover largely overlap.
>
>
>
> Both help with detection of errors like buffer overrun, double free, use
> after free, etc.  Asan generally gives you more immediate feedback on
> those, but you pay a higher price in performance.  Debug CRT lets you do
> some trade off between the performance hit and how soon it detects problems.
>
>
>
> Asan documentation says leak detection is experimental on Windows, while
> the Debug CRT leak detection is mature and robust (and can be nearly
> automatic in debug builds).  By adding a couple calls, you can do finer
> grained leak detection than checking what remains when the program exits.
>
>
>
> Debug CRT lets you hook all of the malloc calls if you want, so you can
> extend it for your own types of tracking and bug detection.  But I don't
> think that feature is often used.
>
>
>
> Windows's Appverifier is cool and powerful.  I cannot remember for sure,
> but I think some of its features might depend on the Debug CRT.  One thing
> it can do is simulate allocation failures so you can test your program's
> recovery code, but most programs nowadays assume memory allocation never
> fails and will just crash if it ever does.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Note that ASAN support is present on Windows now.  Does the Debug CRT
> provide any features that are not better served by ASAN?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:44 AM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> For release builds, I think this is fine. However for debug builds, the
> Windows allocator provides a lot of built-in functionality for debugging
> memory issues that I would be very sad to lose. Therefore, I would request
> that:
>
>
>
>    1. This be added as a configuration option to either select the new
>    allocator or the windows allocator
>    2. The Windows allocator be used by default in debug builds
>
>
>
> Ideally, since you’re doing this work, you’d implement it in such a way
> that it’s fairly easy for anybody to use whatever allocator they want when
> building LLVM (on any platform, not just windows), and it’s not just
> hardcoded to system allocator vs whatever allocator ends up getting added.
> However, as long as I can use the windows debug allocator I’m happy.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Christopher Tetreault
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexandre
> Ganea via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:20 PM
> *To:* cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* [EXT] [cfe-dev] RFC: Replacing the default CRT allocator on
> Windows
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I was wondering how folks were feeling about replacing the default Windows
> CRT allocator in Clang, LLD and other LLVM tools possibly.
>
>
>
> The CRT heap allocator on Windows doesn’t scale well on large core count
> machines. Any multi-threaded workload in LLVM that allocates often is
> impacted by this. As a result, link times with ThinLTO are extremely slow
> on Windows. We’re observing performance inversely proportional to the
> number of cores. The more cores the machines has, the slower ThinLTO
> linking gets.
>
>
>
> We’ve replaced the CRT heap allocator by modern lock-free thread-cache
> allocators such as rpmalloc (unlicence), mimalloc (MIT licence) or snmalloc
> (MIT licence). The runtime performance is an order of magnitude faster.
>
>
>
> Time to link clang.exe with LLD and -flto on 36-core:
>
>   Windows CRT heap allocator: 38 min 47 sec
>
>   mimalloc: 2 min 22 sec
>
>   rpmalloc: 2 min 15 sec
>
>   snmalloc: 2 min 19 sec
>
>
>
> We’re running in production with a downstream fork of LLVM + rpmalloc for
> more than a year. However when cross-compiling some specific game platforms
> we’re using other downstream forks of LLVM that we can’t change.
>
>
>
> Two questions arise:
>
>    1. The licencing. Should we embed one of these allocators into the
>    LLVM tree, or keep them separate out-of-the-tree?
>    2. If the answer for above question is “yes”, given the tremendous
>    performance speedup, should we embed one of these allocators into Clang/LLD
>    builds by default? (on Windows only) Considering that Windows doesn’t have
>    a LD_PRELOAD mechanism.
>
>
>
> Please see demo patch here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71786
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for the feedback!
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cfe-dev/attachments/20200708/3b056bc8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3852 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20200708/3b056bc8/attachment-0001.bin>