[llvm-dev] [AArch64] Generated assembly differs depending on whether debug information is generated or not
Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Oct 7 10:31:12 PDT 2019
> On Oct 5, 2019, at 7:03 AM, David Tellenbach <David.Tellenbach at arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vedant,
>
> thanks for your answer and sorry for the late response.
> It seems like D68076 might not address the underlying issue here (e.g. it probably doesn't improve the situation for projects using `-g -fno-unwind-tables`?).
> Yes, D68075 is a somewhat conservative patch that aligns the behaviour on AArch64 (for GNU targets) that leads to consistent generated assembly. As you said it does not help if unwind tables are explicitly disabled (`-fno-unwind-tables`). It is a conservative patch since it decreases scheduling potential (due to smaller scheduling regions) for the non-debug case but fixes the bug of generating inconsistent assembly.
> Would you mind elaborating a bit on your proposals to delay/change CFI instruction insertion? In particular, it'd help to hear a bit about how CFI instructions are inserted today (is some of it done by CFIInstrInserter, and the rest by target-specific frame lowering code?).
> CFI instructions are inserted during target specific frame lowering, the CFIInstrInserter is only run on X86 targets and seems to verify the correctness of CFI instructions after the got inserted during X86 frame lowering.
>
> Regarding the 3 possible roadmaps to solve the issue (see my first email) I currently think 3 (changing instruction scheduling such that CFI instructions are scheduled together with stack altering instructions) is the most promising one because it wouldn't require targets specific changes. Since e.g. X86 or if I remember correctly also AArch64 on Darwin targets insert CFI instructions in both, debug and non-debug mode, solution 3 would increase scheduling potential for these targets.
>
> To summarize: D68075 would align non-debug mode with debug mode and therefore potentially *decrease* scheduling potential. Solution 3 would align debug mode with non-debug mode (in terms of instruction scheduling) and therefore *increase* scheduling potential.
Thanks for breaking things down so clearly. My gut instinct would be to push for changes that make scheduling decisions the same modulo CFI instructions, but I really don't know how much work that entails, or if it would pay for its own complexity. OTOH the "option 1" patch you have is an immediate fix.
CC'ing some folks who probably have more experience working with CFI/scheduling than me (+ Amara, Adam, Florian).
vedant
>
>
> David
> From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> on behalf of Vedant Kumar <vedant_kumar at apple.com>
> Sent: 30 September 2019 20:50
> To: David Tellenbach <David.Tellenbach at arm.com>
> Cc: paul.robinson at sony.com <paul.robinson at sony.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; nd <nd at arm.com>; Tim Northover <tnorthover at apple.com>; Ahmed Bougacha <abougacha at apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [AArch64] Generated assembly differs depending on whether debug information is generated or not
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> It seems like D68076 might not address the underlying issue here (e.g. it probably doesn't improve the situation for projects using `-g -fno-unwind-tables`?).
>
> Would you mind elaborating a bit on your proposals to delay/change CFI instruction insertion? In particular, it'd help to hear a bit about how CFI instructions are inserted today (is some of it done by CFIInstrInserter, and the rest by target-specific frame lowering code?).
>
> best,
> vedant
>
>> On Sep 26, 2019, at 6:57 AM, David Tellenbach via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> thanks for your comments.
>>> This is PR37240 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37240 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37240>). I suspect this problem affects all targets; your patch D68076 would address it only for AArch64. Although I would suggest you do some careful measurements to determine the runtime performance effect, to decide whether this is acceptable.
>> Yes, in principle the problem that instruction scheduling is dependent on the presence of cfi instruction should affect more targets than AArch64. However, this does not imply that all of these targets produce inconsistent assembly depending on debug information.
>>
>>> The more complete approach in your steps 2 + 3 would solve this for all targets, assuming the solution did not have to be very target-specific. This would benefit the entire community.
>> At least 2. would require a lot of target dependent changes because the insertion of cfi instructions would have to be moved from target specific frame lowering into an (probably again target specific) insertion pass.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 26/09/2019 13:55, paul.robinson at sony.com <mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> This is PR37240 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37240 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37240>). I suspect this problem affects all targets; your patch D68076 would address it only for AArch64. Although I would suggest you do some careful measurements to determine the runtime performance effect, to decide whether this is acceptable.
>>>
>>> The more complete approach in your steps 2 + 3 would solve this for all targets, assuming the solution did not have to be very target-specific. This would benefit the entire community.
>>> --paulr
>>> <>
>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of David Tellenbach via llvm-dev
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 5:57 AM
>>> To: llvm-dev
>>> Cc: nd
>>> Subject: [llvm-dev] [AArch64] Generated assembly differs depending on whether debug information is generated or not
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we at Arm have noticed that assembly can differ when compiling for AArch64
>>> depending on whether debug information is generated or not.
>>>
>>> The issue is reproducible for the following small example compiled with `-O1`
>>> for `aarch64-arm-linux-gnu`:
>>>
>>> a() {
>>> b(a);
>>> for (;;)
>>> c("", b);
>>> }
>>>
>>> The reason for the difference is that AArch64 frame lowering emits CFI
>>> instructions if debug information is enabled but not if not. CFI instructions
>>> act as scheduling boundaries during instruction scheduling and therefore lead to
>>> differing scheduling regions and an overall different instruction scheduling.
>>>
>>> We see several ways to fix the issue and would welcome comments on this:
>>>
>>> 1. Enabling unwind tables by default for AArch64: By enabling unwind tables
>>> by default CFI instructions will be inserted in both, debug and non-debug
>>> mode. This should lead to smaller scheduling regions and probably to less
>>> scheduling potential.
>>>
>>> However, I've measured the average size of scheduling regions for randomly
>>> generated programs with and without default unwind tables and found an
>>> average difference of 0.5 to 1 instruction. Other architectures such as x86
>>> do exactly this and therefore don't face the issue.
>>>
>>> The following patch on Phabricator introduces the said change:
>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D68076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68076>
>>>
>>> 2. Postpone insertion of CFI instructions until after instruction scheduling.
>>> This would require a new pass running after instruction scheduling that
>>> inserts CFI instructions if needed. The downside I see is increased
>>> compile-time and probably some code duplication with frame lowering.
>>>
>>> 3. Change instruction scheduling such that CFI instructions get tied together
>>> with relevant instructions in such a way that they get scheduled together.
>>> If this could work it would probably the cleanest solution.
>>>
>>> To summarize:
>>> 1. would make scheduling in the non-debug case behave like in the
>>> debug case and therefore probably cost some scheduling potential. However, it
>>> would be by far the most easy to implement. 2. + 3. would probably lead to
>>> better scheduling but seem to be more complex to implement.
>>>
>>> Comments and additional ideas are welcome.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191007/896c5171/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list