[LLVMdev] Finding safe thread suspension points while JIT-ing (was: Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.)

[Philip Reames]

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic at the moment, but given 
that it is potentially GC related, I figured I'd speak up.

I see two unspoken assumptions in the thread so far:
- The runtime needs a means to bring all threads to a stop to perform 
some action.  In particular, no thread can be excepted.
- A single LLVM library call takes longer to complete than the runtime 
is willing to wait for the thread stoppage to occur.

Both are entirely reasonable; I'm just spelling them out since they 
might not be obvious to everyone.  The second is particularly noteworthy 
since it's entirely new in LLVM.

I largely agree with Andy at the moment that the existing interface 
assumes one thread per context.  I don't see the issue with continuing 
with this assumption, particular since no one t.m.k. has put forward any 
serious plans to change this.  If this does happen, having it occur in 
an opt-in manner will be a matter of practical necessity.

I find myself somewhat uncertain of the choice to leverage the pass 
manager for this purpose though.  It's the entirely logical place to 
start, but is it enough?  What if a single pass takes too long to 
complete?  Do we start scattering these call backs throughout large 
parts of LLVM?  Also, how does this interact with something like the 
hoped for parallel LTO?

Like Chandler, I believe there needs to be a fully thought out proposal 
and discussion on this list.  I would weakly oppose the change in it's 
current form solely on this basis.

Andy, Juergen - Can you start by providing a bit more background 
information?  What do you need the thread yield call back for? Garbage 
collection?  Other VM tasks?  User mode scheduling of threads?  
Something else entirely?

Yours,
Philip



On 05/10/2014 11:11 AM, Juergen Ributzka wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com 
> <mailto:atrick at apple.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 9, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com 
>> <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I'm bringing a discussion that has thus far been on llvm-commits 
>>> to llvmdev because I finally (and thanks for helping me understand 
>>> this Andy) understand what is *really* going on, and I think lots of 
>>> others need to be aware of this and involved to figure out the right 
>>> path forward.
>>>
>>> You can find the full review thread and more context under the 
>>> subject "[PATCH][PM] Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.", 
>>> but here is the important bit from Juergen's initial email:
>>>
>>>     this patch provides the necessary C/C++ APIs and infastructure
>>>     to enable fine-
>>>     grain progress report and safe suspension points after each
>>>     pass in the pass
>>>     manager. 
>>>
>>>     Clients can provide a callback function to the pass manager to
>>>     call after each
>>>     pass. This can be used in a variety of ways (progress report,
>>>     dumping of IR
>>>     between passes, safe suspension of threads, etc).
>>>
>>>
>>> I had wrongly (perhaps because of the implementation, but still, 
>>> wrongly) focused on the progress report and IR dumping use cases. It 
>>> sounds (from talking to Andy offline, sorry for that confusion) like 
>>> the real use case is safe suspension of threads. The idea is that we 
>>> would have a callback from the pass manager into the LLVMContext 
>>> which would be used to recognize safe points at which the entire 
>>> LLVMContext could be suspended, and to expose these callbacks 
>>> through C API to JIT users.
>>
>> Good. Let's table the discussion of how to report passes and just 
>> focus on the thread suspension API. It never occurred to me that a 
>> client using the new API for thread scheduling would not *already* be 
>> making an assumption about one thread per context. I believe anything 
>> else will break these clients regardless of the API. So I didn't see 
>> this API as imposing a new restriction. The more explicit we can be 
>> about this, the better.
>
> They not only have to make the assumption of one thread per context, 
> but they actually have to enforce it. According to the comments in 
> LLVMContext there is no locking guarantee and the user/client has to 
> be careful to use one context per thread. This is the current C API 
> and that is how clients are using it right now.
>
> Any future extension to the LLVMContext and to the pass manager that 
> change this requirement - namely running in parallel - should be 
> backwards compatible. Although I don't see how this could or should be 
> an issue to begin with as long we default to the current 
> single-threaded execution model per LLVMContext. Anything that changes 
> this behavior should and have to be explicitly requested by the 
> client. That means there has to be a new C API call to communicate 
> this information. For now all the threads are created by the client 
> and I think this should also stay so in the future.
>
>>> Increasingly, I can't fathom a way to get a good design for safe 
>>> suspension of JIT-ing threads using callbacks tied to when passes 
>>> run today. I think it is a huge mistake to bake this into the C API 
>>> at this point. If you need this functionality in the C API, with a 
>>> design we can use going forward, I'd like to see a *really* careful 
>>> write up of exactly what the suspension point requirements are and a 
>>> design for achieving them. I think it should be completely 
>>> independent from any infrastructure for reporting or dumping IR in 
>>> pass managers.
>>
>> Yes, there absolutely needs to be a way to expose functionality 
>> within LLVM in its current form through the C API. We can say that 
>> the API works under some explicit set of rules. If some future LLVM 
>> can be configured in a way that breaks the rules, you don't get the 
>> callback in that case.
>
> It is already a conscious choice of the client if and how to use 
> threads. This choice already affects how callbacks that we already 
> have are implemented by the client. The same would apply for the 
> proposed callback. The client knows exactly the conditions, because it 
> is in full control of setting up the environment.
>
>>
>>> I think something much simpler than this might work outside of the C 
>>> API, where we can essentially change how it works when we start 
>>> designing how multiple threads will actually work within an 
>>> LLVMContext. Would that work? Is there a way to make progress more 
>>> rapidly there?
>>>
>>> Ultimately, this is opening a huge can of worms if we put it into 
>>> the C API, as I think it is going to fundamentally impact what 
>>> options we actually have for parallelizing parts of LLVM in the 
>>> future. If we want to go there, we need be *incredibly* explicit 
>>> about what assumptions are being made here.
>
> Yes, this will definitely impact the design, but only in a positive 
> way :D There is only one big requirement and that is a given: The 
> thread cannot hold a global mutex when making this call. This would 
> deadlock everything - even other concurrent running contexts in todays 
> implementation.
>
> When a thread group is running concurrently in the future pass manager 
> then it clear that the suspension of any thread in this thread group 
> might deadlock the remaining threads in the thread group and that is 
> perfectly fine. Also having this callback being fired concurrently is 
> fine too. The client created a parallel pass manager and has to write 
> the callback thread-safe.
>
> The important thing here is that LLVM is holding the thread hostage 
> and we need the control back to safely suspend it. It is possible 
> suspend the thread from outside, but then it might be inside a system 
> call or library call that holds a mutex. This could deadlock the whole 
> application. By giving the control back to the client via the call 
> back we know that this cannot happen. We know that LLVM might hold 
> some mutex local to the context, but that is fine and won't deadlock 
> the whole application.
>
> -Juergen
>
>>
>> Let's be explicit then.
>>
>> We will always need to be able to configure LLVM with one thread per 
>> context. Always. So it's not like we're adding something that could 
>> become unusable in the future. Does anyone disagree?
>>
>> Incidentally, I have no idea why the callback would not work with 
>> parallel context. If you suspend a thread within a thread group, it 
>> is totally expected that the other threads will also eventually block.
>>
>> Tangentially, how many other places do we assume that an LLVMContext 
>> corresponds to a thread?
>>
>> -Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140512/bac9976e/attachment.html>