[llvm-dev] RFC: New function attribute HasInaccessibleState
Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Dec 4 08:31:04 PST 2015
>there would be two disjoint global states
In some sense yes, but technically not disjoint. Functions marked with this
attribute should still be able to access the globals within the program
under compilation, if its not marked with ReadNone.
>If malloc and free can both use global variables (there is no notion of
library in the compiler)
Inaccessible state here refers to any global that is not visible to the
program under compilation. The key idea (behind the new attribute) is to
convey that these external functions do things inside that the compiler
cannot know about, and hence deal with them conservatively.
- Vaivaswatha
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at compilertree.com>
> wrote:
>
> >what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call that
> private).
> malloc and free could both use global variables that are defined in libc,
> but are inaccessible to the program under compilation.
>
>
>
> If malloc and free can both use global variables (there is no notion of
> library in the compiler), then from what I understand you are actually
> creating another global state: i.e. there would be two disjoint global
> states: the usual default one and another one that is only accessed by
> function having this attribute.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
> >if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal state, then
> malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
> Which is why it would be preferable to call it "inaccessible" state rather
> than "internal".
>
> >It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc with
> respect to a free.
> No, it would also prevent interchanging the order of malloc and free,
> since they both maintain states (which can be shared, but not accessible to
> the program under compilation) and the swapping order could result in a
> different final state.
>
> >At the cost of some redundancy, I think a new attribute is needed.
> @hal. I'm not sure what this implies. Does the semantics of the attribute
> in the first mail sound right to you?
>
> > that'd be redefining the semantics of ReadNone. ReadNone allows elision
> of a call if its result is unused,
> @James. That right. Optimizations should hereafter (if the proposed
> attribute is accepted) be more careful in interpreting ReadNone. If the
> call also has HasInaccessibleState, it shouldn't remove the call, even if
> the call takes no arguments or its return value isn't, because it could be
> modifying some internal state.
>
>
> - Vaivaswatha
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at compilertree.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >is this "internal state” supposed to be private to the function?
>> It could be private or not. Hence the name "inaccessible", to mean that
>> the program under compilation has no access to the state. So while printf
>> and malloc (for example) could share state in libc, the program under
>> compilation cannot access this state.
>>
>>
>> This is still not clear to me, you’re saying “it could be private or
>> not”: what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call
>> that private).
>>
>> Now, from the point of view of the compiler, malloc and free are two
>> separate functions, if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal
>> state, then malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
>>
>> >how this flag would prevent the last “optimization” you’re illustrating
>> Assuming you are referring to the quoted examples, currently these
>> optimizations are not happening anyway (from what I understand). The issue
>> is that, after malloc/free are tagged with "ReadNone", such transforms may
>> happen. Hence to prevent that, the additional flag denoting that these
>> functions maintain an internal state.
>>
>>
>> I’m questioning why would this flag solve that, it does not seem to to
>> me. It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc
>> with respect to a free.
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Vaivaswatha
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This email is in continuation to the mail thread
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-December/092996.html, to
>>> propose a new function attribute that can convey that a function maintains
>>> state, but this state is inaccessible to the rest of the program under
>>> compilation.
>>>
>>> Such a flag could be added to most libc/system calls such as
>>> printf/malloc/free. (libc and system calls do access/modify internal
>>> variables such as errno).
>>>
>>> Example attributes (in addition to what are already set):
>>> malloc/free: HasInaccessibleState, ReadNone
>>> printf: HasInaccessibleState, ArgMemOnly
>>> realloc: HasInaccessibleState, ReadOnly (not sure).
>>>
>>> The intention behind introducing this attribute is to relax the
>>> conditions in GlobalsAA as below:
>>> (this code is in GlobalsAAResult::AnalyzeCallGraph)
>>>
>>> if (F->isDeclaration()) {
>>> // Try to get mod/ref behaviour from function attributes.
>>> - if (F->doesNotAccessMemory()) {
>>> + if (F->doesNotAccessMemory() || F->onlyAccessesArgMemory()) {
>>> // Can't do better than that!
>>> } else if (F->onlyReadsMemory()) {
>>> FunctionEffect |= Ref;
>>> if (!F->isIntrinsic())
>>> // This function might call back into the module and read a global -
>>> // consider every global as possibly being read by this function.
>>> FR.MayReadAnyGlobal = true;
>>> } else {
>>> FunctionEffect |= ModRef;
>>> // Can't say anything useful unless it's an intrinsic - they don't
>>> // read or write global variables of the kind considered here.
>>> KnowNothing = !F->isIntrinsic();
>>> }
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> This relaxation allows functions that (transitively) call library
>>> functions (such as printf/malloc) to still maintain and propagate GlobalsAA
>>> info. In general, this adds more precision to the description of these
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Concerns regarding impact on other optimizations (I'm repeating a few
>>> examples that Hal mentioned earlier).
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> >A readnone function is one whose output is a function only of its
>>> inputs, and if you have this:
>>> >
>>> > int *x = malloc(4);
>>> > *x = 2;
>>> > int *y = malloc(4);
>>> > *y = 4;
>>> > you certainly don't want EarlyCSE to replace the second call to malloc
>>> with the result of the first (which it will happily do if you mark malloc
>>> as readnone).
>>>
>>> For malloc, even though ReadNone is set now (as proposed above),
>>> EarlyCSE should be taught to respect the HasInaccessibleState and not
>>> combine functions that maintain internal states. Similarly other
>>> optimizations (such as DCE) must be taught to respect the flag.
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> >void foo(char * restrict s1, char * restrict s2) {
>>> > printf(s1);
>>> > printf(s2);
>>> >}
>>>
>>> >If printf is argmemonly, then we could interchange the two printf calls.
>>>
>>> In this example too, printf maintains an internal state, preventing the
>>> calls from being internchanged. Also, it is now correct to add
>>> ArgMemOnly to printf as it does not access any other program memory.
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> >For malloc this is still a problem, in the following sense, if we have:
>>> >
>>> > p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> > ...
>>> > free(p1);
>>> >
>>> > p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> > ...
>>> > free(p2);
>>> >allowing a transformation into:
>>> > p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> > p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> > ...
>>> > free(p1); free(p2);
>>> >could be problematic.
>>>
>>> Both free and malloc would be marked with having an internal state. This
>>> should prevent this kind of an optimization. Note that having the
>>> ReadNone attribute should not cause problems anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> Something is not clear to me: is this "internal state” supposed to be
>>> private to the function?
>>> How does it deal with malloc/free which can be seen as sharing a state?
>>> Especially it is not clear to me how this flag would prevent the last
>>> “optimization” you’re illustrating.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Mehdi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151204/6a0a1ceb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list