[llvm-dev] unnecessary reload of 8-byte struct on i386
Eli Friedman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Oct 28 16:33:44 PDT 2019
It's not unheard of for the compiler to work around CPU bugs... but generally, we try to do it in a more disciplined way: with a code generation pass that actually detects the bad sequence in question. I'm not really happy with trying to "get lucky" here to avoid a bug.
This particular missed optimization is a known issue with the LLVM IR representation of "byval"; there's an implied copy that can't be easily optimized away at the IR level due to calling convention rules. For ARM targets, clang works around this issue by changing the IR it generates; see ARMABIInfo::classifyArgumentType in clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp .
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Seth Brenith via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 2:29 PM
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: [EXT] [llvm-dev] unnecessary reload of 8-byte struct on i386
I've recently been looking at the generated code for a few functions in Chromium while investigating crashes, and I came across a curious pattern. A smallish repro case is available at https://godbolt.org/z/Dsu1WI . In that case, the function Assembler::emit_arith receives a struct (Operand) by value and passes it by value to another function. That struct is 8 bytes long, so the -O3 generated code uses movsd to copy it up the stack. However, we end up with some loads that aren't needed, as in the following chunk:
movsd xmm0, qword ptr [ecx] # xmm0 = mem,zero
mov dword ptr [esp + 24], edx
movsd qword ptr [esp + 40], xmm0
movsd xmm0, qword ptr [esp + 40] # xmm0 = mem,zero
movsd qword ptr [esp + 8], xmm0
As far as I can tell, the fourth line has no effect. On its own, that seems like a small missed opportunity for optimization. However, this sequence of instructions also appears to trigger a hardware bug on a small fraction of devices which sometimes end up storing zero at esp+8. A more in-depth discussion of that issue can be found here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=9774 .
I'm hoping that getting rid of the second load in the sequence above would appease these misbehaving machines (though of course I don't know that it would), as well as making the code a little smaller for everybody else. Does that sound like a reasonable idea? Would LLVM be interested in a patch related to eliminating reloads like this? Does anybody have advice about where I should start looking, or any reasons it would be very hard to achieve the result I'm hoping for?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev