[llvm-dev] lifetime.start/end
Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 11 08:28:29 PST 2021
On 1/11/21 9:48 AM, Ralf Jung wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
>>>> A3: We could not use lifetime to argue about addresses. This means
>>>> we could/should also not argue that overlapping
>>>> lifetimes result in different addresses. Thus, a comparison
>>>> between the address of two allocas could not
>>>> immediately be folded. That said, there would be special cases
>>>> though. Basically, if one of the allocas does
>>>> not escape, other than the comparisons to be folded, we can
>>>> fold them. Afterwards, coalescing or splitting
>>>> would still be consistent because it is unobservable. The
>>>> problem we have in-tree is that we fold even though
>>>> the address is still observed (after the fold). It is still
>>>> unclear to me what the impact of this would be
>>>> on real code. I suggested before that we run some experiments
>>>> first before we make any decision whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I hope this question has not been answered yet, but I don't see how
>>> that fold could be legal. I asked the same question on Phabricator
>>> but it seems you prefer to have the discussion here. Taking your
>>> example from there and adjusting it:
>>>
>>> p = malloc(1)
>>> q = malloc(1)
>>> %c = icmp eq %p, %q
>>> free(q)
>>> free(p)
>>>
>>> I think there is a guarantee that c will always be "false". Every
>>> operational model of allocation that I have ever seen will guarantee
>>> this, and the same for every program logic that I can imagine. So if
>>> the compiler may fold this to "false", then as far as I can see,
>>> pointer comparison becomes entirely unpredictable. The only
>>> consistent model I can think of is "icmp on pointers may spuriously
>>> return 'true' at any time", which I doubt anyone wants. ;)
>>>
>>> Am I misunderstanding what you are proposing here?
>>
>> I'm confused. In your text I read: It should be "false" but *not*
>> folded to "false" or else ...
>
> *oops* sorry for that, I meant "if the compiler may fold this to 'true'".
>
>> FWIW, I would expect `%c = false` here.
>
> Good, we agree then.
>
>> The tricky part is, do we see `%c = false` at compile time
>> or at runtime. If it's the former, we might run into the same
>> coalescing issue we have for allocas:
>>
>> p = malloc(1)
>> free(q)
>> q = malloc(1)
>> free(p)
>> %c = icmp eq %p, %q
>>
>> What is `%c` now? It could go either way, depending on your
>> allocator, agreed?
>
> Agreed.
>
>> If so, we need to ensure
>> there is not a second `%c2 = icmp eq %p, %q` somewhere if we want to
>> fold `%c` as it needs to be consistent.
>
> Indeed -- if we constrain the non-deterministic choice that the
> allocator is making, we need to do so consistently.
>
> On Phabricator, you wrote
>
>> We could instead coalesce allocas in the middle end (more
>> aggressively and not only based on lifetime markers) in order to fold
>> comparisons of the "then equal" allocas to "equal".
>
> So, to me this sounded like you wanted to fold `icmp` to `true` in
> situations like in my example. It looks like I misunderstood.
> So is your proposal instead that we can coalesce allocations *after*
> we have ensured that there definitely is no `icmp` on their pointer
> any more? Like, for local variables, we first fold away all `icmp` and
> then we can freely coalesce since now it's not observable that we are
> reusing memory?
Let me start with:
My phab response is "stale" by now. My first email to this thread was
written after I had more time to think about all this:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-January/147594.html
Separation of concerns, yes. If you can't observe we coalesced, we can
coalesce, or choose not to. My main argument is that the folding we do
right now is broken, or the coalescing is. We cannot fold, coalesce, and
then fold again (which could be runtime eval), as that leads to
inconsistencies.
>
> However, if we translate alloca to malloc+free, all (almost all?) of
> these allocations *will* overlap in their lifetime, so 'false'
> (inequal) is the only thing we could ever fold anything to (and we
> don't have to worry about consistency here since this is the only
> possible choice). I guess after we did that, if there's nothing else
> observing these addresses, we could indeed actually reuse the
> underlying storage...
>
> Am I on the right track?
I guess initially we would only fold to `inequal`, which is fine, until
we start to coalesce locations with non-overlapping lifetime early.
Though, now that I said this, I'm not even sure we could ever fold after
coalescing, thus we could ever coalesce if the addresses (of both)
are "still observed". Maybe folding is not the problem but coalescing
is, though I think both are in the most general sense. I think I can
fabricate a reasonable flow of transformation in which early *and*
partial folding is bad:
a = alloc
b = alloc
... // no use of a or b
foo(a)
... // no use of a or b
bar(b)
... // no use of a or b
c = (a == b)
now we assume that the two calls are outlined after we fold `(a == b)`
to `false`:
void foocall() {
a = alloc
foo(a)
}
void barcall() {
a = alloc
bar(a)
}
foocall()
barcall()
c = true
now we assume foo stores away `a` and bar compares it to `b`. That would
be a problem.
WDYT?
>
> Kind regards,
> Ralf
>
>>
>> Does that make some sense?
>>
>> ~ Johannes
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/21 10:12 PM, Juneyoung Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:54 AM Johannes Doerfert
>>>>> <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/7/21 4:55 PM, Juneyoung Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> It is, alloca must have its integral address decided at its
>>>>>>> *allocation*
>>>>>>> time as well, like 0xFF00... .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, if 0xFFFF0000 ~ 0xFF000000 is already allocated,
>>>>>>> the new
>>>>>>> alloca cannot be placed there unless it is not observed in the
>>>>>>> future,
>>>>>>> according to your proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how do we know from the current state whether the stack
>>>>>>> variable is
>>>>>>> going to be observed or not?
>>>>>> With that argument you could allocate all but 4 bytes, do a
>>>>>> malloc(4)
>>>>>> and know the address of the returned pointer (assuming it is not
>>>>>> null).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I try to say is, either your scenario is part of the model and
>>>>>> everything we do is broken as you could "observe" addresses
>>>>>> passively,
>>>>>> *or*, the abstract machine we use for semantic reasoning doesn't
>>>>>> permit
>>>>>> the above reasoning. I really hope for the latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's a very valid point..!
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I have a memory model that addresses this problem.
>>>>> The gist is that we can interpret each allocation instruction as
>>>>> *creating
>>>>> 2 blocks* and nondeterministically returning one of them.
>>>>> The other one is marked as invalid but not freed immediately.
>>>>> Deallocation
>>>>> frees both blocks.
>>>>> If there is not enough space for having two blocks, it is treated as
>>>>> out-of-memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes guessing the address of an allocation according to memory
>>>>> layout
>>>>> invalid UB.
>>>>>
>>>>> p = malloc(4)
>>>>> // If p != null, it is guaranteed there was at least two 4 byte slots
>>>>> available, say 0x100~0x104 and 0x110~0x114.
>>>>> // Two blocks are allocated at 0x110 and 0x114, and one of the
>>>>> addresses is
>>>>> nondeterministically returned.
>>>>> // By the nature of nondeterminism, all executions below should be
>>>>> well-defined regardless of the address of p.
>>>>> *(int*)0x100 = 10; // In an execution where p is 0x110, this
>>>>> raises UB.
>>>>>
>>>>> The paper link is here <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276495> FYI.
>>>>
>>>> Nice! Thanks for the link :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To argue differently: Who is to say there is a stack, or only one,
>>>>>> or that alloca allocates memory "on the one stack"? That is not
>>>>>> part of
>>>>>> the IR, IMHO. I can write a machine on which alloca lowers to
>>>>>> malloc,
>>>>>> I don't even need the free during stack unwind but that I could
>>>>>> do as
>>>>>> well if I wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is right, the example was for illustrative purposes. IR does not
>>>>> enforce alloca to be placed at 'stack'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Making icmp/ptrtoint yield poison will still make loop
>>>>>>> versioning or
>>>>>>> pointer rewriting transformations unsound because these
>>>>>>> operations now
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> create poison (even if pointers are noundef).
>>>>>> I did not say they yield poison, at least I did not try to say that.
>>>>>> What are you referring to exactly?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to this:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this makes ptrtoint/icmp make UB-raising instructions, which
>>>>>>> contradicts with what LLVM does.
>>>>>> As with other violation of attributes I would, on first though,
>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>> to produce poison, not UB.
>>>>> But it is more about the (imaginary) attribute, so maybe I was
>>>>> slightly out
>>>>> of topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) is fine, I think the suggestion semantically makes sense
>>>>>> perfectly. 1)
>>>>>>> is something I'm concerned about now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are more than pointer foldings, such as rewriting such
>>>>>>> expression,
>>>>>>> code motion ptr cmp, introduce ptr cmp, etc. There is also analysis
>>>>>> relying
>>>>>>> on ptr cmp.
>>>>>>> Defining the correctness of each of them is something we want to
>>>>>>> avoid,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> maybe that's why we want to define precise semantics for things.
>>>>>> I don't get the point. My proposal does not change the semantics of
>>>>>> pointer comparisons, at all. I explicitly mentioned that in the last
>>>>>> email.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh okay, I thought it was a part of the lifetime proposal, but it
>>>>> seems
>>>>> more like a separate thing.
>>>>> I agree that this requires performance impact.
>>>>> Also investigation of existing transformations would be needed;
>>>>> Alive2's
>>>>> pointer comparison is doing approximation yet, but if it becomes
>>>>> fully
>>>>> precise, it will show something from running LLVM unit tests I
>>>>> believe..! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this will be less aggressive and may give nice feedback to
>>>>>>> potential projects that are using lifetime with non-alloca.
>>>>>> The lifetime marker debate, basically 2) above, is orthogonal to the
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> you try to solve. It got mixed in as lifetime markers were used by
>>>>>> StackColoring
>>>>>> to perform coalescing but that is coincidental. You can (arguably)
>>>>>> coalesce stack
>>>>>> allocations regardless of lifetime markers and with 1) such a
>>>>>> transformation
>>>>>> (w/ and w/o lifetime markers) would actually be sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the end, we can implement IR writer that lowers lifetime with
>>>>>> non-alloca
>>>>>>> into memset(undef). WDYT?
>>>>>> Yeah, 2) is orthogonal and we can lower it that way. Unsure if it is
>>>>>> helpful
>>>>>> but we can certainly define it that way in the LangRef.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ Johannes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Juneyoung
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p.s. The reply was late, sorry. I think I can spend more time on
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:02 AM Johannes Doerfert <
>>>>>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/21 4:33 PM, Juneyoung Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Stepwisely defining the semantics of instructions is a
>>>>>>>>>>> desirable
>>>>>>>>> direction
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. What in the proposal would prevent us from
>>>>>>>>>> defining
>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of instructions, or force us to do it in an
>>>>>>>>>> "undesirable
>>>>>>>>> way"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I meant it would be great if the output state after executing an
>>>>>>>>> instruction can be described using its input state.
>>>>>>>>> (that was the meaning of 'stepwise semantics', I should have
>>>>>>>>> been more
>>>>>>>>> clear about this)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, the semantics of 'z = add x y' can be defined as
>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>> Given an input state s, next state s' = s[z -> s(x) + s(y)]
>>>>>>>>> where s(x) is the value of x in the previous state, and s[z ->
>>>>>>>>> v] is a
>>>>>>>>> state with z updated to v.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another example that involves memory: the semantics of 'i =
>>>>>>>>> ptrtoint p'
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be defined as follows:
>>>>>>>>> Given an input state s, next state s' = s[i -> s(p).obj.address +
>>>>>>>>> s(p).offset]
>>>>>>>>> where obj.address is the begin address of a memory object obj
>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>> & offset is p's byte offset. (Imagine a pointer to the offset
>>>>>>>>> of some
>>>>>>>> char
>>>>>>>>> array).
>>>>>>>>> Note that ptrtoint & add can be nicely defined w.r.t the input
>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, the instruction that we're facing is 'p = alloca'.
>>>>>>>>> To describe the output state after executing 'p = alloca', the
>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> new alloca should be determined.
>>>>>>>>> If observedness is involved, we need to know the future state
>>>>>>>>> again. :/
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> don't know whether the alloca is going to be observed or not
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> seeing
>>>>>>>>> the future.
>>>>>>>>> This is the problem of the current lifetime intrinsics as well.
>>>>>>>> No, you mix things up here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody proposed to modify the semantics of `alloca`.
>>>>>>>> `alloca` provides you with a fresh, unobserved block of
>>>>>>>> dereferenceable memory that is implicitly freed as the stack
>>>>>>>> unwinds. That is it. No context necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to modify the IR, you need to argue the observable
>>>>>>>> semantics which is nothing new. That this might require more than
>>>>>>>> a peephole view of the program is also not new.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One possible approach to resolve this is adding an
>>>>>>>>> 'unobserved' flag to
>>>>>>>>> alloca instruction (similar to what was suggested by Nicolai).
>>>>>>>>> And, we can say that if alloca with 'unobserved' is used by
>>>>>>>> ptrtoint/icmp,
>>>>>>>>> it is UB.
>>>>>>>> The flag can be added, like we add other attributes. It should not
>>>>>>>> be required for any optimization we talked about though. It
>>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>>> is a way to manifest derived or given information into the IR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attribute deduction, as well as frontends with domain knowledge,
>>>>>>>> can add such information. The flag we discussed in phab was not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> sufficient for all the transformation examples I presented in
>>>>>>>> my mail,
>>>>>>>> that is why I extended my argument. We could still have a
>>>>>>>> "noescape"
>>>>>>>> flag for allocas, but I'm not sure how useful that really is.
>>>>>>>> We can
>>>>>>>> certainly deduce it and manifest it, unsure if we have domain
>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>> we can use for non-trivial cases though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But this makes ptrtoint/icmp make UB-raising instructions, which
>>>>>>>>> contradicts with what LLVM does.
>>>>>>>> As with other violation of attributes I would, on first though,
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> to produce poison, not UB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, existing optimizations like loop versioning can introduce
>>>>>>>>> ptrtoint/pointer comparisons too.
>>>>>>>> Sure. I am not certain why that is a problem. I get the feeling
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> are still mixed up here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I proposed is twofold:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) We stop folding comparisons between different allocas if
>>>>>>>> changing the
>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>> of both might be observable. Thus, if both might have
>>>>>>>> their address
>>>>>>>> "taken"/escaped,
>>>>>>>> other than the comparisons we want to fold, we cannot
>>>>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) We define lifetime markers to mean `memset(undef)`.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first should be sufficient for the problem you were trying
>>>>>>>> to solve
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> first place. The second makes lifetime markers less weird. Note
>>>>>>>> that 1)
>>>>>>>> is not changing
>>>>>>>> the semantics of the IR. We basically just argue there is a bug
>>>>>>>> in our
>>>>>>>> instcombine right
>>>>>>>> now as we do not check all necessary preconditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see that there are other questions that I didn't answer yet,
>>>>>>>>> but let
>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> answer this first to limit the length of the text :)
>>>>>>>> Sure, we can split the discussion :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~ Johannes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Juneyoung
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 3:36 AM Johannes Doerfert <
>>>>>>>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/21 8:00 PM, Juneyoung Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Johannes,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read your proposal and thought about the model.
>>>>>>>>>> Cool, thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As you concerned in A3, certain programs may be valid only when
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>> blocks with overlapping lifetimes have disjoint addresses.
>>>>>>>>>>> Look at this example (I'm using malloc, but alloca also works):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> p1 = malloc(4)
>>>>>>>>>>> p2 = malloc(4) // for brevity, assume that there as enough
>>>>>>>>>>> space & p1
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> p2 != null
>>>>>>>>>>> set<char*> s;
>>>>>>>>>>> s.insert(p1); s.insert(p2); // If the second insert did
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing, it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be surprise to programmers
>>>>>>>>>>> work(s);
>>>>>>>>>>> free(data1)
>>>>>>>>>>> free(data2)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, IR semantics should guarantee that escaped blocks are
>>>>>>>> disjoint.
>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> would be great for verification tools on LLVM IR to be able
>>>>>>>>>>> to answer
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the second insert will succeed.
>>>>>>>>>> I agree, the second insert should succeed, assuming `p1 && p2`.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think my proposal would in any way impact the program
>>>>>>>>>> above,
>>>>>>>>>> if anything the A3 reasoning makes sure such a program with
>>>>>>>>>> allocas
>>>>>>>>>> is not miscompiled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm also not sure I understand what you try to argue for. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>> elaborate a bit what it is you think is bad or needs to be
>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that definition of escapedness is not clear
>>>>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>>>> level. Describing the IR semantics w.r.t. LLVM's escaped
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't something we want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantic definition of escapedness of a pointer seems hard,
>>>>>>>>>>> I mean
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>> stepwise manner.
>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't a single instruction such as 'escape i8* ptr', and
>>>>>>>>>>> we need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>> over all instructions in the function. For example,
>>>>>>>>>>> '(int)(p+1) -
>>>>>>>> (int)p'
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't semantically escaping the pointer p because the result
>>>>>>>>>>> is 1
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of the value of p.
>>>>>>>>>>> Stepwisely defining the semantics of instructions is a
>>>>>>>>>>> desirable
>>>>>>>>>> direction
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm confused. What in the proposal would prevent us from
>>>>>>>>>> defining
>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of instructions, or force us to do it in an
>>>>>>>>>> "undesirable
>>>>>>>>>> way"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In practice, syntactically checking escapedness + nice
>>>>>>>>>>> engineering
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> not break optimizations in most cases (as undef/poison did);
>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be great to move to another level, since LLVM IR is used in
>>>>>>>>>>> so many
>>>>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>> The property under which you can coalesce objects is simple:
>>>>>>>>>> It is not observable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, if the address of one of the two objects you coalesce is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> observed, coalescing is not observable. That is a sufficient
>>>>>>>>>> condition
>>>>>>>>>> not a necessary one. Pointer "escaping" is one step further.
>>>>>>>>>> If the
>>>>>>>>>> address doesn't escape it is not observed. This does not mean
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> "semantic conditions for coalescing", e.g., for the purpose of
>>>>>>>> translation
>>>>>>>>>> validation, is supposed to be build on top of our "definition of
>>>>>>>> escaping
>>>>>>>>>> pointers". That said, we use "does not escape" as a
>>>>>>>>>> precondition for
>>>>>>>>>> various transformation and I'm unsure what is any different
>>>>>>>>>> now. The
>>>>>>>>>> entire escape argument is only used in the validity of the
>>>>>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>>>> folding.
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, we can fold a comparison of a noalias pointer with
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> if the former does not escape (and both are dereferenced and
>>>>>>>>>> one is
>>>>>>>>>> written for sure).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The pointer comparison is another beast. It indeed has a few
>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> solving it might require nontrivial solution.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the main problem of the inconsistencies and such
>>>>>>>>>> we've seen is
>>>>>>>>>> rooted in the erroneous folding of pointer comparisons.
>>>>>>>>>> Cleaning up
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> lifetime marker semantics is actually unrelated and simply
>>>>>>>>>> not folding
>>>>>>>>>> as described in A3 should solve the issue that has been
>>>>>>>>>> reported.
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless,
>>>>>>>>>> we should take a crack at lifetime markers while we are here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ~ Johannes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Juneyoung
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 9:37 AM Johannes Doerfert <
>>>>>>>>>> johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juneyoung,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy new year :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After we had a lengthy discussion on phab last year, I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>> summarize my thoughts,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially given that I had some time to think about things
>>>>>>>>>>>> over the
>>>>>>>>>> break.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, no promises on the quality ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I start with general questions I asked myself and then go on
>>>>>> rambling
>>>>>>>>>>>> about a potential design.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Q1: Is lifetime a given property or a derived one, thus is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it fixed
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> modifiable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a question I asked myself a lot recently. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> derived
>>>>>>>>>>>> and modifiable,
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least I hope it is. Only that would allow
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations I would
>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>> us to do. Here are some examples:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://godbolt.org/z/G8obj3
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://godbolt.org/z/obaTc
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Q2: Is a pointer comparison, or similar use, extending the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifetime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Asked differently, can we hoist a pointer comparison into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> region
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>> the pointer is dead?
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an important question which we haven't discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> much as we
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed LICM has to work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The current behavior is that non-dereferencing uses are not
>>>>>> extending
>>>>>>>>>>>> the lifetime and are
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed outside of "lifetime regions" (as indicated by
>>>>>>>>>>>> markers).
>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>>> will always produce valid
>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Though, we might want to think about a lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>> marker that
>>>>>>>>>>>> spits out a new pointer
>>>>>>>>>>>> value instead of reusing the old one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Q3: Can we use lifetime to argue about addresses?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The question here is, can we fold address comparisons based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifetimes, or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So far, we fold comparisons based on "address information".
>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we "know" globals,
>>>>>>>>>>>> allocas, and mallocs cannot be equal to one another. Also, two
>>>>>>>> distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>> allocations, for globals
>>>>>>>>>>>> and allocas, are considered unequal. Now, the crux is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent if we do two
>>>>>>>>>>>> comparisons, and, as of now, we are not (bug number
>>>>>>>>>>>> missing). Since
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> backend (or any other place
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that matter) might coalesce allocas, their addresses
>>>>>>>>>>>> might not
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> different after all. If we
>>>>>>>>>>>> already folded a comparison to "unequal" we are doomed if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we later
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> a comparison that results
>>>>>>>>>>>> in "equal". (Note, this is different from aliasing rules as
>>>>>>>>>>>> they can
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> stricter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Design:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would hope we can come up with a model that treats memory
>>>>>>>>>>>> "the
>>>>>>>> same",
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless if it is global,
>>>>>>>>>>>> stack, or heap. I want to avoid special casing one of them
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrt.
>>>>>>>> lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>> as I believe most optimizations
>>>>>>>>>>>> would apply to any of them, potentially for different
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons and
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> different gains, but nevertheless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal (largely based on the conversation in phab):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A1: Lifetime is a concept that talks about memory content
>>>>>>>>>>>> *only*.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, the memory content is set to
>>>>>>>>>>>> undefined by lifetime markers. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> derived/modifiable as
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> just an "as-is" property of the memory
>>>>>>>>>>>> content. The lifetimes of an object, as described by
>>>>>> markers,
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>> change during the compilation. They
>>>>>>>>>>>> might become smaller if we deduce the object is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not accessed
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the memory content is not used, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> might become larger if objects with non-overlapping
>>>>>> lifetimes
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> coalesced. (One could see the latter as
>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing a new object though.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A2: If we define lifetime as above, it has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> address of an object. Consequently, pointer
>>>>>>>>>>>> comparisons and similar operations are valid
>>>>>>>>>>>> outside the
>>>>>>>> lifetime.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Loads and stores are as well, they can
>>>>>>>>>>>> even not be removed "easily". A store followed by
>>>>>>>>>>>> a lifetime
>>>>>>>>>> marker
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a load following a lifetime marker
>>>>>>>>>>>> is dead or results in undef respectively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A3: We could not use lifetime to argue about addresses.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This means
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> could/should also not argue that overlapping
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifetimes result in different addresses. Thus, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison
>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> the address of two allocas could not
>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately be folded. That said, there would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Basically, if one of the allocas does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not escape, other than the comparisons to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> folded, we can
>>>>>>>> fold
>>>>>>>>>>>> them. Afterwards, coalescing or splitting
>>>>>>>>>>>> would still be consistent because it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> unobservable. The
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have in-tree is that we fold even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> the address is still observed (after the fold). It
>>>>>>>>>>>> is still
>>>>>>>>>> unclear
>>>>>>>>>>>> to me what the impact of this would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> on real code. I suggested before that we run some
>>>>>> experiments
>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>> before we make any decision whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is pretty much saying that lifetime markers are
>>>>>> `memset(undef)`,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> you suggested before (I think).
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are some implementation level differences but at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> end of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> day they are basically the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy to hear some thoughts on this, especially if it fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> that lead to D93376 in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ Johannes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/20 2:42 AM, Juneyoung Lee via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're discussing the well-formedness of lifetime.start/end
>>>>>> intrinsic
>>>>>>>>>>>> here (
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D93376), deciding what is a
>>>>>> (syntactically
>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically) valid use of these intrinsics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to gather more context about the intrinsics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Is there a frontend or framework that introduces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifetime call
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-stack allocated objects?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If exists, which behavior do they expect from it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Can a block's lifetime be started bytewise or elementwise?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I imagine an optimization that allow using stack very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compactly,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is a real-world use case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juneyoung
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>
>>>
>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list