Xin Tong Utoronto
2011-Apr-01 03:06 UTC
[LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote:> > > >> So, one way that current projects use the JIT is via > getPointerToFunction() which returns an address that can then be casted and > called with the appropriate arguments. The compile task itself is often done > on a separate thread. How would you deal with the updating problem in the > calling application? What sort of use cases for the JIT have you looked at > so far? > >> > > I assume the updating problem means the problem when a method gets > recompiled. Here is an algorithm to deal with that. Say A calls B. when B > gets recompiled we patch B with br helper at the beginning of its code, then > when A calls B, B branches to the helper and the helper patches the br B in > A with br newB. as we don't know all the callers of B, we have to wait until > they call B to know who they are and patch them one-by-one. The helper can > get the address of the br B in A from the link register or some specific > registers or memory locations. For newly compiled code, the address of the > newB can be used. There is another problem with recompilation. obsolete > methods(methods that have recompiled copies) need to be recycled. In order > to do that, we will need to keep a br helper in place of the old method and > reclaim the old method body. > > > > This all assumes that you have control over where the parent (for lack of a > better term) calls the function you're compiling. This method of replacement > only works when you call a stub in place of the function - since the JIT > owns the stub you'll have a relocation to replace. If you are giving an > actual address that is the real start of the function this won't work since > you'll have no way of updating. > > Just some food for though. >No we will always have control over where the parent calls the functions that we are recompiling. As explained in the example below Original Code Binary for A: Binary for B: ... ... ... ... br B ... ... ... ... After B is recompiled, we patch the entry of B with br helper Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B ... br helper ... ... ... ... br B ... ... ... ... now when the parent A calls B, B branches to the helper, we will get the address of br B from the return address pushed onto the stack or saved in the link register. The helper then patches the callsite in A After Patching Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B ... br helper ... ... ... ... br Recompiled B ... ... ... ...> > > As for use case, the LLVM JIT is used as an execution engine for a few > number of ported languages, for example JIT compiler for PHP, in 2008 GSOC. > There are also people using LLVM JIT for industry work, > https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/www-pubs/trunk/2010-01-Wennborg-Thesis.pdf. > As LLVM is growing more and more powerful, LLVM JIT will become more and > more attractive to language designer and implementer. And I think that is > one of the most important reasons we need to have an adaptive compilation > framework. This framework can also work together with the LLVM > profile-guided optimizations to make LLVM JIT a much faster execution > engine. > > > > Heh. Not quite what I meant by use cases :) I meant some "ways that you > expect people will take the address of the code you are providing to run". > > >> What do you have in mind for benchmarking? Which of the jitted problems > were you looking at, or just running large programs through lli and that > interface? (Which isn't threaded and therefore doesn't have the problems I > mentioned above - it has other problems). > > > > Widely known benchmarks, such as SPEC CPU, would be good candidates. In > addition to these benchmarks, we may want to introduce some specific tests > for Just-In-Time compilers, like ones with a small portions of the methods > taking up 80%+ of the time and ones with all the methods spend about the > same amount of time and ones in the middle of the two. > > > > *nod* You'll also want to test short lifetime code to make certain that you > aren't regressing the performance of that too much as well. > > > From the questions you asked, I now understand why this project might > take more time than I originally anticipated. Thank You. > > Thanks for looking into it. I think it's a great idea for a GSoC project. > > -eric >-- Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110331/f2a4bc34/attachment.html>
Eric Christopher
2011-Apr-01 03:07 UTC
[LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
> > > No we will always have control over where the parent calls the functions that we are recompiling. As explained in the example below > > Original Code > > Binary for A: Binary for B: > > ... ... > ... ... > br B ... > ... ... > ... > > After B is recompiled, we patch the entry of B with br helper > > Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B > ... br helper ... > ... ... ... > br B ... ... > ... > ... > > > now when the parent A calls B, B branches to the helper, we will get the address of br B from the return address pushed onto the > stack or saved in the link register. The helper then patches the callsite in A > > After Patching > > Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B > ... br helper ... > ... ... ... > br Recompiled B ... ... > ... > ... >Your helper is what I'm calling a stub (and what they're called in the jit at the moment). -eric
Xin Tong Utoronto
2011-Apr-01 03:13 UTC
[LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote:> > > > > > No we will always have control over where the parent calls the functions > that we are recompiling. As explained in the example below > > > > Original Code > > > > Binary for A: Binary for B: > > > > ... ... > > ... ... > > br B ... > > ... ... > > ... > > > > After B is recompiled, we patch the entry of B with br helper > > > > Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B > > ... br helper ... > > ... ... ... > > br B ... ... > > ... > > ... > > > > > > now when the parent A calls B, B branches to the helper, we will get the > address of br B from the return address pushed onto the > > stack or saved in the link register. The helper then patches the callsite > in A > > > > After Patching > > > > Binary for A: Binary for B: Binary for Recompiled B > > ... br helper ... > > ... ... ... > > br Recompiled B ... ... > > ... > > ... > > > > Your helper is what I'm calling a stub (and what they're called in the jit > at the moment). > > -eric >Then we would always have the location of the br B instruction in A, as it is pushed onto the stack or saved in link register when A calls B. -- Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110331/a9b58037/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
- [LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
- [LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
- [LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler
- [LLVMdev] GSOC Adaptive Compilation Framework for LLVM JIT Compiler