[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
Tom Stellard
tom at stellard.net
Thu Dec 11 08:52:34 PST 2014
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
> +zalman at google.com
>
Hi Duncan,
This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for
me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject()
was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as
an MDNode*:
diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
index cd5edd2..916d216 100644
--- a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
+++ b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
@@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ MDNode *MDNode::getMDNode(LLVMContext &Context,
ArrayRef<Metadata *> MDs,
MDNodeFwdDecl *MDNode::getTemporary(LLVMContext &Context,
ArrayRef<Metadata *> MDs) {
MDNodeFwdDecl *N = new (MDs.size()) MDNodeFwdDecl(Context, MDs);
- LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(N);
+ LeakDetector::addGarbageObject((MDNode*)N);
return N;
}
I'm in favor of committing this.
-Tom
> > On 2014 Dec 10, at 15:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
> >>>>> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the
> >>>>> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get
> >>>>> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage,
> >>>>> so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please
> >>>>> flag me down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll follow up soon with bitcode and assembly changes!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Duncan,
> >>>>
> >>>> I started getting random assertion failures in some tests yesterday, and I think
> >>>> it may be related to this change. Here is the stack trace:
> >>>>
> >>>> #0 0x00007ffff59f4c39 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> >>>> #1 0x00007ffff59f6348 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> >>>> #2 0x00007ffff59edb96 in __assert_fail_base () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> >>>> #3 0x00007ffff59edc42 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> >>>> #4 0x00007ffff3a30e92 in llvm::LeakDetectorImpl<void>::addGarbage(void const*) [clone .part.19] () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #5 0x00007ffff3a30fd3 in llvm::LeakDetector::addGarbageObjectImpl(void*) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #6 0x00007ffff3a40eed in llvm::MDNode::getTemporary(llvm::LLVMContext&, llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::Metadata*>) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #7 0x00007ffff3426b3f in MapValueImpl(llvm::Metadata const*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #8 0x00007ffff3426bd6 in MapValueImpl(llvm::Metadata const*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #9 0x00007ffff3426bd6 in MapValueImpl(llvm::Metadata const*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #10 0x00007ffff3426eed in llvm::MapValue(llvm::Metadata const*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #11 0x00007ffff3426f39 in llvm::MapValue(llvm::MDNode const*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #12 0x00007ffff3427174 in llvm::RemapInstruction(llvm::Instruction*, llvm::ValueMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::WeakVH, llvm::ValueMapConfig<llvm::Value const*, llvm::sys::SmartMutex<false> > >&, llvm::RemapFlags, llvm::ValueMapTypeRemapper*, llvm::ValueMaterializer*) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #13 0x00007ffff3755786 in (anonymous namespace)::ModuleLinker::linkGlobalValueBody(llvm::GlobalValue&) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #14 0x00007ffff375767f in llvm::Linker::linkInModule(llvm::Module*) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #15 0x00007ffff3758cfb in llvm::Linker::LinkModules(llvm::Module*, llvm::Module*, std::function<void (llvm::DiagnosticInfo const&)>) ()
> >>>> from /opt/buildbot/lib/libLLVM-3.6svn.so
> >>>> #16 0x00007ffff6c9d8cf in clang::BackendConsumer::HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext&) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libOpenCL.so.1
> >>>> #17 0x00007ffff6e61f23 in clang::ParseAST(clang::Sema&, bool, bool) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libOpenCL.so.1
> >>>> #18 0x00007ffff6c9e6bb in clang::CodeGenAction::ExecuteAction() () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libOpenCL.so.1
> >>>> #19 0x00007ffff6b7ead6 in clang::FrontendAction::Execute() () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libOpenCL.so.1
> >>>> #20 0x00007ffff6b5d179 in clang::CompilerInstance::ExecuteAction(clang::FrontendAction&) () from /opt/buildbot/lib/libOpenCL.so.1
> >>>> #21 0x00007ffff6b1282c in (anonymous namespace)::compile_llvm (llvm_ctx=...,
> >>>> source="\n__kernel void test_fn(__local float *sSharedStorage, __global float *srcValues, __global uint *offsets, __global float *destBuffer, uint alignmentOffset )\n{\n int tid = get_global_id( 0 );\n sSha"..., headers=..., name="input.cl", triple="r600--", processor="verde", opts="",
> >>>> address_spaces=..., optimization_level=@0x7fffffff21cc: 2, r_log=...) at llvm/invocation.cpp:255
> >>>> #22 0x00007ffff6b140c8 in clover::compile_program_llvm (source=..., headers=..., ir=ir at entry=PIPE_SHADER_IR_NATIVE, target=..., opts=..., r_log=...)
> >>>> at llvm/invocation.cpp:710
> >>>> #23 0x00007ffff6b0a371 in clover::program::build (this=this at entry=0x23a0530, devs=..., opts=opts at entry=0x7ffff793dc0d "", headers=...)
> >>>> at core/program.cpp:63
> >>>> #24 0x00007ffff6af31c4 in clBuildProgram (d_prog=0x23a0538, num_devs=0, d_devs=0x0, p_opts=<optimized out>, pfn_notify=0x0, user_data=0x0)
> >>>> at api/program.cpp:182
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this look related? If so, let me know what other information you need to
> >>>> try to debug this issue.
> >>>
> >>> This could be related; I'm not sure.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure that this commit is the cause of the regression.
> >>
> >> r223801 works and r223810 does not, and I don't think any of the other
> >> commits in that range could cause this.
> >>
> >>> It looks like a leak detection assertion, and I didn't need to change
> >>> that logic at all. `ValueMap` calls `MDNode::getTemporary()` and
> >>> `MDNode::deleteTemporary()` in the same ways it used to (and I didn't
> >>> touch the implementation of those).
> >>>
> >>> Can you reproduce this with `llvm-link`? If so, that sounds like the
> >>> best place to start.
> >>
> >> I can't reproduce this using llvm-link unfortunately. Any other ideas?
> >
> > (Continuing via email, since Tom stepped away IRC.)
> >
> > Tom, from the trace [1], it the problematic pointer (0x27e4c80) only shows
> > up once.
> >
> > [1]: http://people.freedesktop.org/~tstellar/md-crash.out
> >
> > That means that something *else* -- other than `MDNode::getTemporary()`
> > -- must be adding that address to garbage and failing to remove it.
> >
> > I just dug into `LeakDetector::addGarbageObject()` and it stores *all*
> > calls to `addGarbage()` in the same place. There are a fair number of
> > these in the IR:
> >
> > $ git grep -e addGarbageObject -w -- lib/IR/
> > lib/IR/BasicBlock.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/BasicBlock.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Function.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Function.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Function.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Function.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Globals.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Globals.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Globals.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Globals.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Globals.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Instruction.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Instruction.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Instruction.cpp: if (!P) LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(this);
> > lib/IR/Metadata.cpp: LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(N);
> >
> > I think the next step is to identify who called `addGarbageObject()` with
> > the problematic address, and what the stack trace was.
> >
> > The weird thing is, I also noticed a semantic change I made here
> > accidentally. `addGarbageObject()` has two overloads: `void*` and
> > `const Value*`. `MDNode::getTemporary()` used to match the latter, but
> > now it matches the former.
> >
> > The weird part: all the other calls to `addGarbageObject()` look like they
> > send in a `Value *`.
> >
> > Do you have any other calls to `addGarbageObject()`? Do they match
> > `void *`?
> >
> > Also, what happens with the attached patch? (If this fixes your problem,
> > I think it's just papering over something...)
> >
> > <0001-IR-Detect-Metadata-leaks-separately-from-generic-obj.patch>
>
> Zalman also had a reproduction, and he's been able to track it down to
> an `addGarbageObject()` call from `MachineBasicBlock`. It looks like
> the MBB gets deallocated but `removeGarbageObject()` isn't called yet.
>
> CC'ing him here so he can join the thread once he's gotten a little
> further.
>
> BTW, if this is blocking anyone, I can commit the patch I attached to
> my previous email (or you can apply it locally). I think it's probably
> the right thing eventually -- it improves the output when there *is* an
> issue -- but I haven't committed it yet since it'll cover up the
> problem.
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list