[llvm-dev] [RFC] A nofree (and nosynch) function attribute: Mixing dereferenceable and delete
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jul 11 17:54:04 PDT 2018
On 07/11/2018 07:38 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> +1 to plan
>
> It would be good to include inference logic to promote to full
> `dereferenceable` when possible so that transforms which need that
> anyways can just use that.
>
> And/or we should ensure the APIs used always query both so that
> transform authors don't have to remember to do so...
>
> I still somewhat wish we could do with a single `dereferenceable`.
I definitely plan on having the APIs check both attributes
appropriately. No one should need to remember to query both and,
hopefully, there should be no changes necessary to existing passes
(except enhancements to attribute inference, of course).
Thanks again,
Hal
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:21 PM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Richard.
>
> Based on the feedback from this thread, I'll move forward with the
> patches for nofree, nosync, adding a new corresponding
> dereferenceable attribute (my suggestion is to name this
> dereferenceable_on_entry; suggestions welcome), and updating Clang
> is emit this new attribute instead of the current one.
>
> -Hal
>
>
> On 07/11/2018 06:43 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 16:13, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> [+Richard]
>>
>>
>> On 07/11/2018 08:29 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote:
>> > I'm not sure if nosynch is sufficient. What if we had:
>> >
>> > void f(int& x) {
>> > if (false) {
>> > int r0 = x;
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > // other thread
>> > free(<pointer to x>);
>> >
>> > The source program is race free, but LLVM may speculate the
>> read from
>> > x (seeing that it is dereferenceable) creating a race.
>>
>> Interestingly, I'm not sure. I trust that Richard can answer this
>> question. :-)
>>
>> So, if we had:
>>
>> int y = ...;
>> ...
>> f(y);
>>
>> then I think that Clang's use of dereferenceable is almost
>> certainly
>> okay (because the standard explicitly says, 9.2.3.2p5, "A
>> reference
>> shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or
>> function."). Because the reference must have been valid when
>> f(y) began
>> executing, unless it synchronizes somehow with the other
>> thread, any
>> asynchronous deletion of y must be a race.
>>
>> On the other hand, if we have:
>>
>> int &y = ...;
>> ...
>> f(y);
>>
>> do we know that, when f(y) begins executing, the reference
>> points to a
>> valid object? My reading of 9.3.3p2, which says, "Argument
>> passing
>> (7.6.1.2) and
>> function value return (8.6.3) are initializations.", combined
>> with the
>> statement above, implies that, perhaps surprisingly, the same
>> holds
>> here. When the argument to f is initialized, it must refer to
>> a valid
>> object (even if the initializer is another reference).
>>
>> Richard, what do you think?
>>
>>
>> First, see also core issue 453 <http://wg21.link/cwg453>, under
>> the guise of which we're fixing the wording in
>> [dcl.ref](9.2.3.2)p5 from
>>
>> "A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or
>> function."
>>
>> to something like
>>
>> "If an lvalue to which a reference is directly bound designates
>> neither an existing object or function of an appropriate type
>> (11.6.3 [dcl.init.ref]), nor a region of storage of suitable size
>> and alignment to contain an object of the reference's type (4.5
>> [intro.object], 6.8 [basic.life], 6.9 [basic.types]), the
>> behavior is undefined."
>>
>> My take is that, if the end of the duration of the region of
>> storage is unsequenced with respect to the binding of the
>> reference, then behavior is undefined. Generally when we refer to
>> a thing happening while some condition is true, we mean that the
>> execution point when the condition became true is sequenced
>> before the thing happening, and the execution point where it
>> becomes not true again is sequenced after.
>>
>> So the behavior of that program is undefined regardless of
>> whether 'f' actually loads through 'x'.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Hal
>>
>> P.S. If I'm right, then I might be happy, but it's also
>> somewhat scary
>> (although we've been doing this optimization for multiple
>> releases and I
>> don't think we have a bug along these lines), and I'd at
>> least smell the
>> need for a sanitizer.
>>
>> >
>> > -- Sanjoy
>> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:01 PM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi, everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to propose adding a nofree function attribute to
>> indicate that
>> >> a function does not, directly or indirectly, call a
>> memory-deallocation
>> >> function (e.g., free, C++'s operator delete). Clang/LLVM
>> can currently
>> >> misoptimize functions that:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Have a reference argument.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Free the memory backing the object to which the
>> reference is bound
>> >> during the function's execution.
>> >>
>> >> Because we tag, in Clang, all reference arguments using the
>> >> dereferenceable attribute, LLVM assumes that the pointer is
>> >> unconditionally dereferenceable throughout the course of
>> the entire
>> >> function. This isn't true, however, if the memory is freed
>> during the
>> >> execution of the function. For more information, please
>> see the
>> >> discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D48239.
>> >>
>> >> To solve this problem, we need to give LLVM more
>> information in order to
>> >> help it determine when a pointer, which is dereferenceable
>> when the
>> >> functions begins to execute, will still be dereferenceable
>> later on in
>> >> the function's execution. This nofree attribute can be
>> part of that
>> >> solution. If we know that free (and friends) are not
>> called by the
>> >> function (nor by any function called by the function, and
>> so on), then
>> >> we know that pointers that started out dereferenceable
>> will stay that
>> >> way (except as explained below).
>> >>
>> >> I'm initially proposing this to be only a function
>> attribute, although
>> >> one could easily imagine a parameter attribute as well
>> (that indicates
>> >> that a particular pointer argument is not freed by the
>> function). This
>> >> might be useful, but for the use case of helping
>> dereferenceable, it
>> >> would be subtle to use, unless the parameter was also
>> marked as noalias,
>> >> because you'd need to know that the parameter was not also
>> aliased with
>> >> another argument (or had not been captured). Another
>> analysis would need
>> >> to provide this kind of information.
>> >>
>> >> Also, just because a function does not, directly or
>> indirectly, call
>> >> free does not mean that it cannot cause memory to be
>> deallocated. The
>> >> function might communicate (synchronize) with another
>> thread causing
>> >> that other thread to delete the memory. For this reason,
>> to use
>> >> dereferenceable as we currently do, we also need to know
>> that the
>> >> function does not synchronize with any other threads. To
>> solve this
>> >> problem, like nofree, I propose to add a nosynch attribute
>> (to indicate
>> >> that a function does not use (non-relaxed) atomics or
>> otherwise
>> >> synchronize with any other threads (e.g., perform I/O or,
>> as a practical
>> >> matter, use volatile accesses).
>> >>
>> >> I've posted a patch for the nofree attribute
>> >> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D49165). nosynch's
>> implementation would be
>> >> very similar (except instead of looking for calls to free,
>> it would look
>> >> for uses of non-relaxed atomics, volatile ops, and known
>> functions that
>> >> are not I/O functions).
>> >>
>> >> With both of these attributes (nofree and nosynch), a
>> function argument
>> >> with the dereferenceable attribute will be known to be
>> dereferenceable
>> >> throughout the execution of the attributed function. We
>> can update
>> >> isDereferenceableAndAlignedPointer to include these
>> additional checks on
>> >> the current function.
>> >>
>> >> One more choice we have: We can, as I proposed above,
>> essentially weaken
>> >> the current semantics of dereferenceable to not exclude
>> >> mid-function-execution deallocation. We can also add a
>> second attribute
>> >> with the current, stronger, semantics. We can keep the
>> current attribute
>> >> as-is, and add a second attribute with the weaker
>> semantics (and switch
>> >> Clang to use that).
>> >>
>> >> Please let me know what you think.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again,
>> >>
>> >> Hal
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hal Finkel
>> >> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> >> Leadership Computing Facility
>> >> Argonne National Laboratory
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
--
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180711/d4192d84/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list