[LLVMdev] Jit singleton

[Olivier Meurant]

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction !
I'm not using the JIT in lazy mode, but it was fun to understand the
lazy-stub code.

Attached you will find a patch which follow your 1st option : a map
Stub_address -> JITResolver instance, except that the used map is a
"std::map" to apply the same upper_bound trick as in the map
CallSiteToFunctionMap of the ResolverState. (If it is necessary for
call_site -> function, this should be necessary for call_site -> resolver...
Event if I'm not sure to master all subtle reasons - code alignment/prologue
?)
A mutex on the StubToResolverMap should prevent any possible race
conditions.

Every object (Emitter, Resolver, ResolverState) have now a private member
instance of JIT (JIT *Jit).

The bugpoint tool is using a extern 'C' function :
"getPointerToNamedFunction" to get native pointer on function. This function
used the TheJit static pointer. To keep alive this functionality, I have
added a static SmallVector<JIT*> JitPool (with its mutex JitPoolLock), which
keep pointers of available JIT instance. A new static method on JIT object
"getPointerToNamedFunctionOnJitPool" fills the need (iterate over available
JIT to find the function).

Attached you will find a test, based on "HowToUseJit" example, which
instantiate 2 JIT, in eager/lazy mode and retrieve native pointer via
getPointerToNamedFunction function. Where does it belong ? Should I add
something to llvm test suite ? To the test directory ?

Let me know what you think !
Thanks.

Olivier.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote:

> In eager compilation mode, I don't know of anything that would go
> wrong with having multiple JITs in the process. However, in lazy
> compilation mode, we need to map stub addresses to the JIT that knows
> how to compile them. Right now, that's done by looking up the static
> "TheJITResolver" variable and assuming it's the only JIT, but we could
> 1) use a static DenseMap<stub_address, JITResolver*> instead, or 2)
> include the JITResolver* inside the stub as an argument to the
> compilation callback. Nobody's needed this enough to get it working
> though.
>
> I think it'd make some sense to fix it for eager compilation even
> before getting lazy compilation working. Would you like to write a
> patch? You'll have to remove all uses of TheJIT and TheJITResolver
> except for the one in JITResolver::JITCompilerFn, and change the "only
> one JIT" check to say something about "only one JIT compiling lazily".
>
> I don't think this change will require passing an LLVMContext to the
> JIT--it should just use the Context of the function it's jitting.
>
> The code freeze for llvm-2.7 is on Feb 21 (this probably isn't a
> "major" change), so if you want it in the 2.7 release, please try to
> mail the patch well ahead of that.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Meurant
> <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi everyone !
> >
> > If I call ExecutionEngine::createJIT (or EngineBuilder::create) more than
> > one time, the second time fails on a assertion "Multiple JIT resolvers?".
> > It seems that the JIT is designed to be a singleton in the process, and I
> > was wondering if it was something mandatory.
> > How hard will it be to make it a non-singleton object ? Is this a
> JIT-only
> > problem (work needed on JIT classes only) ? Is it a much wider design
> > constraint (on codegen ?) ?
> >
> > In case, if you ask why I want to create more than one JIT, here is a
> reason
> > :
> > I have a JIT application which works fine, a thread is responsible to
> > prepare code execution (work on module, add functions, optimize, call
> > JIT...) and a another thread is responsible for executing the code
> produced
> > in the first thread.
> > It works great, but the preparation thread is heavily loaded. I decide to
> > look at what happens, if I spawns 2 threads for preparation of the code.
> > I have a working prototype, which have one module and one context by
> thread,
> > and it works. But the JIT is still shared between 2 threads and the time
> > needed to emit a function is not negligible. It will be a great boost of
> > performances, if I can create one execution engine by thread.
> >
> > What do you think ? Do you have any comments on it ?
> > Thanks for reading !
> >
> > Olivier.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20100207/9e038722/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jit_not_a_singleton.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 29297 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100207/9e038722/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HowToUseMultipleJIT.cpp
Type: text/x-c++src
Size: 6062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100207/9e038722/attachment.cpp>