[LLVMdev] Proposal: type uniquing of debug info for LTO
Manman Ren
mren at apple.com
Thu Jun 20 22:52:21 PDT 2013
A summary of options for issue #3:
3> To actually access the MDNode referenced via the hash value, we need to perform a lookup from the hash value to find the corresponding MDNode.
The questions are where to store this map and how to keep it up-to-date when a MDNode is replaced.
---------------------
Option a) a map in DwarfDebug, AsmWriter and DIBuilder, modify access functions in DI classes to pass in the map.
May need to modify printing functions in AsmWriter.
---------------------
Option b) I am going to expand David's description with more details, correct me if I am wrong.
A special Value called MDHash in parallel with MDString, MDHash needs to specify whether it is a use of the hash value, or a definition of the hash value
The updated class hierarchy:
Value -- MDNode
-- MDHash
-- MDString
-- User -- Instruction -- BinaryOperator
In the following example:
!4 = metadata !{i32 786451, metadata !5, null, metadata !"Base", i32 1, i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata !6, i32 0, i32 0, null, i32 915398439} ; [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [Base] [line 1, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [from ]
!6 = metadata !{metadata !7, metadata !9}
!7 = metadata !{i32 786445, metadata !5, i32 915398439, metadata !"a", i32 2, i64 32, i64 32, i64 0, i32 0, metadata !8} ; [ DW_TAG_member ] [a] [line 2, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [from int]
!9 = metadata !{i32 786478, metadata !5, i32 915398439, metadata !"Base", metadata !"Base", metadata !"", i32 1, metadata !10, i1 false, i1 false, i32 0, i32 0, null, i32 320, i1 false, null, null, i32 0, metadata !13, i32 1} ; [ DW_TAG_subprogram ] [line 1] [Base]
915398439 in !4 is the definition of a hash value, 915398439 in !7 or !9 is the use of a hash value.
A separate map "HashToNodeMap" is added to LLVMContext.
MDNode will handle MDHash correctly in the sense that it will update HashToNodeMap whenever it creates a MDNode with a MDHash operand.
MDNode::getOperand will perform a lookup if the actual operand is MDHash and return the corresponding MDNode.
I am not sure whether a named metadata to describe the map is necessary, assuming we already have the retained type list for each CU.
Also at IR linking, the named metadata from all CUs will be combined, leading to a long list.
---------------------
David's description is pasted here for convenience:
a blessed named MD node root that would contain string+node pairs
(alternating elements probably, for space conservation)
a means to add an operand to an MD node with an "indirect"
reference - this would cause the string to be used as the value (with
some flag that it's a 'special' string) but any access of the node
through the operand list would return the underlying MDNode from the
list (lookup via a map in LLVMContext, essentially).
---------------------
Options that are vetoed:
1> Specialize Profile function for DI nodes to use MDNodeSet to support lookup. No need for a separate map.
2> Extend the class hierarchy to have a class for DI nodes:
Value -- MDNode -- DINode
-- MDString
-- User -- Instruction -- BinaryOperator
I personally prefer option b over a since it is much cleaner.
Thanks,
Manman
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:39 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 4:52 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Hi Manman,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The intent of this proposal is to speedup compilation of "-flto -g" for c++
>> programs.
>> This is based on discussions with Adrian, David and Eric.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this back to the list. The original thread was
>> getting quite long.
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> Problem:
>> A single class can be used in multiple source files and the DI (Debug Info)
>> class is included in multiple bc files. The duplication of
>> class definitions causes blow-up in # of MDNodes, # of DIEs, leading to
>> large memory requirement.
>>
>> As an example, SPEC xalancbmk requires 7GB of memory when compiled with
>> -flto -g.
>> With a preliminary implementation of type uniquing, the memory usage will be
>> down to 2GB.
>>
>> In order to unique types, we have to break cycles in the MDNodes.
>>
>> A simple struct definition
>> struct Base {
>> int a;
>> };
>> can cause cycles in MDNodes:
>> !12 = metadata !{i32 786451, metadata !13, null, metadata !"Base", i32 1,
>> i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata !14, i32 0, null, null} ; [
>> DW_TAG_structure_type ] [Base] [line 1, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [from ]
>> !14 = metadata !{metadata !15, metadata !16}
>> !15 = metadata !{i32 786445, metadata !13, metadata !12, metadata !"a", i32
>> 2, i64 32, i64 32, i64 0, i32 0, metadata !8} ; [ DW_TAG_member ] [a] [line
>> 2, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [from int]
>> !16 = metadata !{i32 786478, metadata !13, metadata !12, metadata !"Base",
>> metadata !"Base", metadata !"", i32 1, metadata !17, i1 false, i1 false, i32
>> 0, i32 0, null, i32 320, i1 false, null, null, i32 0, metadata !20, i32 1} ;
>> [ DW_TAG_subprogram ] [line 1] [Base]
>>
>> Cycles: !12 -- !14 -- !15 -- !12
>> !12 -- !14 -- !16 -- !12
>>
>> These cycles make it hard to unique the same struct used in two bc files.
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> How to fix:
>>
>> We attach a hash value to types to help type uniquing and we also replace
>> references to types with their hash values.
>> For the above struct "Base", we now have the following MDNodes:
>> !4 = metadata !{i32 786451, metadata !5, null, metadata !"Base", i32 1, i64
>> 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata !6, i32 0, i32 0, null, i32
>> 915398439} ; [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [Base] [line 1, size 32, align 32,
>> offset 0] [from ]
>> !6 = metadata !{metadata !7, metadata !9}
>> !7 = metadata !{i32 786445, metadata !5, i32 915398439, metadata !"a", i32
>> 2, i64 32, i64 32, i64 0, i32 0, metadata !8} ; [ DW_TAG_member ] [a] [line
>> 2, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [from int]
>> !9 = metadata !{i32 786478, metadata !5, i32 915398439, metadata !"Base",
>> metadata !"Base", metadata !"", i32 1, metadata !10, i1 false, i1 false, i32
>> 0, i32 0, null, i32 320, i1 false, null, null, i32 0, metadata !13, i32 1} ;
>> [ DW_TAG_subprogram ] [line 1] [Base]
>>
>> Note that the cycles are gone and !4 has a hash value of 915398439, and the
>> references to !4 are replaced with 915398439.
>> Thanks Eric for suggesting replacing MD reference with a hash value.
>>
>>
>> In particular I recommended this:
>>
>> a) For C++ odr replace it with the "hash" that's just a string
>> representing the type name.
>> b) For Internal C++ types and all C types replace it with a string
>> that's a concatenation of the type name and the name of the compile
>> unit.
>>
>> Yes, that is what we agreed on over email.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a few issues:
>> 1> How to generate the hash for a given type?
>> With C++'s ODR, it should be enough by using the context and the name for
>> non-internal c++ types.
>> For internal c++ types and types of other languages, hash will not be used.
>>
>>
>> Explain this?
>>
>>
>> For a while, I am going to support both hash and MD reference, once
>> everything is working with hash,
>> I will update all debug info testing cases, turn -gtype-uniquing on, and
>> remove the other path.
>>
>> For internal c++ types, initially they will follow the path of using MD
>> references without a hash.
>>
>>
>> My current implementation is to add a few static member functions in MDNode
>> to profile DI nodes differently.
>> + /// If the array of Vals is for debug info, profile it specially and
>> return true.
>> + /// If the DI node has a hash value, generate the profile using only the
>> hash value and the declaration flag.
>> + static bool profileDebugInfoNode(ArrayRef<Value*> Vals, FoldingSetNodeID
>> &ID);
>>
>> + /// If the MDNode is for debug info, profile it specially and return true.
>> + /// If the DI node has a hash value, generate the profile using only the
>> hash value and the declaration flag.
>> + static bool profileDebugInfoNode(const MDNode *M, FoldingSetNodeID &ID);
>>
>> + /// Given a hash value and a flag, generate the profile for later lookup.
>> + static bool profileDebugInfoNode(unsigned Hash, bool Declaration,
>> FoldingSetNodeID &ID);
>>
>> These static functions are called in Metadata.cpp:
>> void MDNode::Profile(FoldingSetNodeID &ID) const {
>> + if (profileDebugInfoNode(this, ID))
>> + return;
>> +
>>
>> There are other examples of these in MDNode for handling of specific
>> metadata.
>> /// Methods for metadata merging.
>> static MDNode *getMostGenericTBAA(MDNode *A, MDNode *B);
>> static MDNode *getMostGenericFPMath(MDNode *A, MDNode *B);
>> static MDNode *getMostGenericRange(MDNode *A, MDNode *B);
>>
>> Comments are welcome on whether this violates any layering rule.
>>
>>
>> As I've said many times in email, I don't think this is a good idea
>> and would prefer either a or b below. a) is a much simpler solution.
>>
>> Any reason that why it is not a good idea?
>>
>>
>> Other choices are:
>> a> Keep a map in DwarfDebug
>> Keep in mind that the map is used at many stages, and it has to be in sync
>> with MDNodeSet.
>> b> Generalize MDNode to be aware of hash (David can provide more details)
>> c> Extend MDNode to DINode and modify streamers (bitcode reader|writer, ll
>> reader|writer) to be aware of DINode
>> We can provide DINode::get(…) to create a DINode. DINode can have its own
>> Profile function.
>> Other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>>
>> a or b please.
>>
>> Option a> will require a DwarfDebug pointer in every stage of the compiler,
>> and passing the map to the DI classes.
>> A rough estimation is around 100 places.
>> Is it reasonable to pass a DwarfDebug pointer to DIBuilder and llvm linker?
>> Also the map needs to be in sync with MDNodeSet, maybe using ValueHandle can
>> solve the problem.
>>
>>
>> What about putting the map in LLVMContextImpl?
>> It already has a few things specifically for debug info:
>> std::vector<DebugRecVH> ScopeRecords;
>> DenseMap<std::pair<MDNode*, MDNode*>, int> ScopeInlinedAt;
>> …
>>
>> I remember David mentioned it once and I forgot about the conclusion.
>>
>>
>> I mentioned it only as speculation as to how you were implementing it
>> already (but you were doing the profile-changing stuff).
>>
>> I don't think it should be necessary to have the map (in option (a))
>> in such a central location as LLVMContext. It should be usable just
>> from DwarfDebug for generation, and DIBuilder can have its own,
>> separate map to do similar things during DI building.
>>
>>
>> We also need the map during llvm linking since linking will create new
>> MDNodes.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by this. IR linking shouldn't need to
>> do anything debug-info-specific, it should just be the normal IR
>> approach.
>>
>> The declaration-v-definition resolution can be done at codegen-time.
>> We'll have to walk all the lists of retained types anyway to build the
>> map, so we can do declaration-v-definition (keep definitions over
>> declarations when we see both) at that point.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are right that at codegen-time, we can generate the map from the
>> lists
>> of retained types.
>>
>> But dumping the linked ll file requires the map when outputting comments of
>> the MDNode :]
>
> Depending on which things we print out, but yes, in some cases
> (derived types) we do print out the type referenced. I assume the
> AsmPrinter can build such a map, then. (in fact, with a few clients
> like this, it might be nice to build a bit of an abstraction around it
> rather than just using a raw map - something that has a ctor (or I
> suppose it could be a factory function) that reads in the right
> metadata, walks the compile units, etc, and builds the mapping)
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Manman
>>
>>
>> So any other opinion on putting it in LLVMContext other than it being
>> central?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Manman
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Manman
>>
>>
>> More details for option b from David
>>
>> < The alternative I have in mind is a more complete version of what
>> < you're proposing - a full MD feature, not an MD feature that's just
>> < barely enough to support the needs of debug info. What we could do is
>> < allow the insertion of these MDHash things you spoke about but take it
>> < a step further and have MDNode::getOperand walk through the hash &
>> < give the value (in this way, DebugInfo wouldn't have to change at all
>> < to handle hashes - if the Metadata APIs are going to be aware of the
>> < hashes anyway, they might as well provide this convenience
>> < functionality) the metadata feature would also have to have some
>> < blessed top-level named metadata that would have a list of hash+MDNode
>> < to keep those MDNodes alive (so you wouldn't have to stuff all the
>> < types in the retained types list - metadata would provide the full
>> < support, not just half of it).
>>
>>
>>
>> Transition from current DI Metadata:
>> To have a smooth transition, I will add a flag "-gtype-hashing" for the type
>> uniquing work and turn it on by default when we are ready.
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer just make the change to have the front end emit the "hash"
>> (it's not really a hash, it's just a string).
>>
>> Are you saying no transition period? A single patch to have correct handling
>> of "hash" and to update all existing testing cases?
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> Patches:
>> Expect the following patches:
>> 1> add flag -gtype-hashing
>> 2> add hash field to DI types
>> 3> modify DIBuilder to use hash instead of MD reference
>> 4> related to issue 3
>>
>>
>> These can all be a single patch since it shouldn't be very large if we
>> go with a) above. If we go with b) then the MDNode work should be done
>> in isolation first and then the debug info on top of it.
>>
>> What is wrong with smaller patches?
>> My estimation for all the above with a) is about 30K + testing cases.
>>
>>
>> 5> backend change (in DwarfDebug|CompileUnit) to support types shared among
>> compile units
>> requires gdwarf-2 gdwarf-3 gdwarf-4 support for issues related to ref_addr
>>
>>
>> #5 can and should be done before the rest of them.
>>
>> I prefer to submit patches according to the flow of the compiler, starting
>> from the frontend, then IR, then backend.
>> The testing cases will be added for front end, llvm-link and backend.
>> Any reason why #5 should be done first?
>>
>>
>> All changes should be local to debug info classes except patch #4.
>>
>>
>> What's patch #4?
>>
>> Patch #4 above: related to issue 3 (changes corresponding to how to solve
>> issue #3)
>>
>> -Manman
>>
>>
>> -eric
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list