llvm dev - Jun 2017 - [cfe-dev] RFC: ODR checker for Clang and LLD

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:43 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:34 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at
pcc.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne
<peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Sean Silva
<chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very nice and simple implementation!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any statistics on how large these odr
tables are
>>>>>>> compared to other object file data? I assume that
if these tables contain
>>>>>>> full mangled symbol names, they could end up being
very large and may want
>>>>>>> to share the symbol name strings with the overall
string table in the .o
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like
the total size of
>>>>>> the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the
object files, which isn't
>>>>>> great. The current implementation only looks at
records, so I imagine that
>>>>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings that
I'm currently creating.
>>>>>> (I guess it's possible that some types will have a
mangled vtable name in
>>>>>> the string table, so we may be able to share a little
that way.) Note
>>>>>> however that this was without debug info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One option for reducing size would be to
>>>>>> 1) store hashes of ODR names in ODR tables, per
Rui's suggestion
>>>>>> (alongside a reference to the name itself in the string
table)
>>>>>> 2) compress the string table for the ODR names with a
standard
>>>>>> compression algorithm like gzip.
>>>>>> This wouldn't seem to affect link time performance
much because I
>>>>>> think we should only need to look at the strings if we
see a ODR name hash
>>>>>> match together with an ODR hash mismatch, which would
mean an ODR violation
>>>>>> with a high probability (i.e. unless there was an ODR
name hash collision,
>>>>>> we have found an ODR violation). If we don't expect
a lot of sharing with
>>>>>> regular string tables (see below), it seems even more
reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neat observation!
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, it is a birthday problem type situation though, so
for a 32-bit
>>>>> hash, we would expect a collision in about 1 in 2^16
distinct hashes (and
>>>>> 2^16 seems pretty easy to hit in a large project). So
64-bit hashes might
>>>>> be preferable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh right, good point, using a 64-bit hash does seem like a good
idea
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of
your initial
>>>>>>> implementation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests
(the largest
>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks
and 6.61s with ODR
>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it
doesn't seem too
>>>>>> bad. So I think this may be acceptable for an initial
implementation, but
>>>>>> it certainly seems worth trying to do better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that things aren't currently apples-to-apples,
but how does
>>>>> that compare to gold?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will measure it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For that unit_tests binary I measured the overhead at about 5
seconds
>>> (average of 10 runs). That is with debug info, of course.
>>>
>>> W.r.t. LLD and having it always on by default (and hence making it
as
>>>>>>> fast as possible), it seems like right now you are
implementing the
>>>>>>> checking process with a hash table. That's
simple and fine for a first
>>>>>>> implementation, but it's probably worth
mentioning in a comment the problem
>>>>>>> of checking the tables, at least from the
linker's perspective, does fit
>>>>>>> into a map-reduce pattern and could be easily
parallelized if needed. E.g.
>>>>>>> a parallel sort to coalesce all entries for symbols
of the same name
>>>>>>> followed by a parallel forEach to check each bucket
with the same symbol
>>>>>>> name (roughly speaking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, that's one approach. I was thinking of a
simpler approach
>>>>>> where at compile time we sort ODR names by hash and
partition them using
>>>>>> (say) the upper bits of the hash, so that at link time
we can have N
>>>>>> threads each building a hash table for a specific
partition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course this work can be started right after
symbol resolution
>>>>>> finishes and parallelised with the rest of the work
done by the linker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even better than doing it faster is just doing less
work. There's a
>>>>>>> lot of work that the linker is already doing that
may be reusable for the
>>>>>>> ODR checking.
>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>> - maybe we could get the coalescing step as a
byproduct of our
>>>>>>> existing string deduping, which we are generally
doing anyway.
>>>>>>> - we are already coalescing symbol names for the
symbol table. If
>>>>>>> the ODR table is keyed off of symbols in the binary
that we are inserting
>>>>>>> into the symbol table, then I think we could do the
entire ODR check with
>>>>>>> no extra "string" work on LLD's part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see Rui already mentioned some of this in
>>>>>>>
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=726071#c4.
>>>>>>> You mentioned that not everything is necessarily
directly keyed on a
>>>>>>> symbol (such as types), but I think that it would
really simplify things if
>>>>>>> the check was done as such. Do you have any idea
exactly how much of the
>>>>>>> things that we want to check are not keyed on
symbols? If most things are
>>>>>>> keyed on symbols, for the things we are not we can
just emit extra symbols
>>>>>>> prefixed by __clang_odr_check_ or whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the current implementation only works with
records there is
>>>>>> basically zero overlap right now between ODR names and
symbols. I suppose
>>>>>> that I could estimate the amount of function overlap in
a hypothetical
>>>>>> implementation that computes ODR hashes of functions by
comparing the
>>>>>> number of *_odr functions after clang has finished
IRgen with the number
>>>>>> after optimization finishes. This of course would be
strictly more than
>>>>>> functions + types.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't any function or symbol using the record type
have the type
>>>>> name somewhere in it? If we used an offset+length encoding
(instead of
>>>>> offset + NUL termination) we might be able to reuse it then
(at some cost
>>>>> in finding the reference).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That may be possible with some work in the string table
builder. But at
>>>> that point of course we're not dealing with regular symbols
any more. I
>>>> guess we could have two ODR tables per object file: an array of
(ODR hash,
>>>> location) tuples for ODR names that correspond to symbol table
symbols
>>>> (i.e. Rui's proposal on the chromium bug), and an array of
(ODR name, ODR
>>>> hash, location) tuples for all other ODR names. I guess if we
wanted a "low
>>>> overhead" mode we could just omit the second table or put
fewer symbols in
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> With debug info surely there is some sort of string
representing the
>>>>> record name or something like that, no?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not the record name on its own (they do appear but a bit
awkwardly --
>>>> each namespace component is stored in a separate string), but
if the record
>>>> has at least one member function the mangled type name will
appear
>>>> somewhere in .debug_str, so we could in principle reuse that
with the
>>>> offset/length trick.
>>>>
>>>> I guess we may have to have our "low-overhead"
user-facing behavior be
>>>>> a bit more nuanced. E.g.:
>>>>> 1. does this feature bloat object files significantly
>>>>> 2. does this feature slow down link times significantly
>>>>>
>>>>> Intuitively, it seems like we should be able to get 1. when
debug info
>>>>> happens to be enabled (not sure about split dwarf?) and
possibly in all
>>>>> cases at the cost of complexity. We may be able to get 2.
in all cases with
>>>>> proper design.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be my rough assessment as well. I think we
have a
>>>> good shot at 1 for all cases with some of the ideas that have
been
>>>> mentioned already. If we can avoid creating dependencies on
DWARF I think
>>>> that would be ideal -- I'd ideally like this to work for
COFF as well,
>>>> where you'd typically expect to find CodeView in object
files. If I were to
>>>> try this I think the first thing that I would try is
hash/compression
>>>> combined with the two ODR tables (no reuse for non-symbol ODR
names to
>>>> start with, as compression may be enough on its own).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I developed a second prototype which uses hash/compression with no
>>> attempt to reuse. It is available here:
>>> https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker2
>>>
>>> For Chromium the object file size overhead was 536566007 bytes, or
in
>>> relative terms about 25%, or about 4% with debug info. I measured
perf
>>> overhead for unit_tests at about 6%, but after I moved the checker
onto
>>> another thread, the overhead disappeared into the noise.
>>>
>>
>> Still seems like quite a big increase.
>>
>> Any chance of compression?
>>
>
> That was with compression -- the implementation compresses the parts of
> the ODR table that aren't hashes (aside from the header and the Clang
> version, which is a small fixed cost), as well as the string table. The
> hashes were left uncompressed because they are in the critical path of the
> linker and because I imagine that they wouldn't really be that
compressible.
>
I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't especially compressible - and how
much of the size increase is the compressed data V the uncompressed data?

Is it still in the hot path when parallelized?

> So I think the remaining gains would either be through limiting the number
> of ODR table entries, or through reuse of data.
>
> Limiting might be something to explore -- one possibility is that we could
> limit the ODR table entries to the declarations that are "used"
by a
> particular translation unit (it appears that Clang tracks something like
> that in Decl::Used/Decl::Referenced, but I'm not sure if that is
exactly
> what we need -- I think we would basically need to test for reference
> reachability from the functions/globals that are IRgen'd).
>
Currently it has every type and function that is in the AST? Yeah, that's a
lot - perhaps it should be more like the things that go in the DWARF?
(though would need to add some cases there - since the DWARF logic already
relies on the ODR to not emit duplicates in some cases)

> In terms of reuse, it seems that of the 536566007 bytes of
> overhead, 319309579 were the compressed part of the ODR tables. So even if
> we achieved 100% sharing,
>
100% sharing? You mean if all the data were compressed, and assuming the
hashes were compressible at the same ratio as the other data?

> with the current scheme I think that our minimum achievable overhead would
> be ~15% (no debug info) or ~2% (with debug info).
>
>
>> Could this go into .dwo files with Fission and be checked by dwp
instead,
>> perhaps?
>>
>
> I think it could also work that way, yes.
>
> I'm reasonably happy with these figures, at least for a first
>>> implementation. We may be able to do even better for file size with
reuse,
>>> but I'd leave that for version 2.
>>>
>>
>> What's the story with compatibility between versions, then? Is
there a
>> version header?
>>
>
> Yes, the header contains a version number.
>
>
>> Will old formats be supported by lld indefinitely? Not at all?
>>
>
> I think we should drop support for old formats when we introduce a new
> format. My understanding is that the ODR hash can change whenever Clang
> changes (the implementation only performs ODR checking if all ODR tables
> were produced by the same revision of Clang), so there wouldn't seem to
be
> a huge benefit in keeping support for old formats around.
>
I imagine it's possible people aren't necessarily going to rev lld in
exact
lock-step with clang, but I could be wrong. (certainly binutils ld or gold
aren't released/kept in lock-step with GCC, for example)

>
> Peter
>
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue of retaining the ODR check for functions
even if they get
>>>>>>> inlined may inherently pose an extra cost that
can't be folded into
>>>>>>> existing work the linker is doing, so there might
be a reason for clang to
>>>>>>> have a default mode that has practically no linking
overhead and one that
>>>>>>> does more thorough checking but imposes extra
linking overhead. Think
>>>>>>> something like a crazy boost library with thousands
of functions that get
>>>>>>> inlined away, but have gigantic mangled names and
so precisely are the ones
>>>>>>> that are going to impose extra cost on the linker.
Simply due to the extra
>>>>>>> volume of strings that the linker would need to
look at, I don't think
>>>>>>> there's a way to include checking of all
inlined function "for free" at the
>>>>>>> linker level using the symbol approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess those inlined functions would still have those
symbol names
>>>>>>> in debug info (I think?), so piggybacking on the
string deduplication we're
>>>>>>> already doing might make it possible to fold away
the work in that case
>>>>>>> (but then again, would still impose extra cost with
split dwarf...).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, let's wait to see what the actual
performance numbers are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter
Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose an ODR checker feature
for Clang and LLD. The
>>>>>>>> feature would be similar to gold's
--detect-odr-violations feature, but
>>>>>>>> better: we can rely on integration with clang
to avoid relying on debug
>>>>>>>> info and to perform more precise matching.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that we use clang's
ability to create ODR hashes
>>>>>>>> for declarations. ODR hashes are computed using
all information about a
>>>>>>>> declaration that is ODR-relevant. If the flag
-fdetect-odr-violations is
>>>>>>>> passed, Clang will store the ODR hashes in a
so-called ODR table in each
>>>>>>>> object file. Each ODR table will contain a
mapping from mangled declaration
>>>>>>>> names to ODR hashes. At link time, the linker
will read the ODR table and
>>>>>>>> report any mismatches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To make this work:
>>>>>>>> - LLVM will be extended with the ability to
represent ODR tables in
>>>>>>>> the IR and emit them to object files
>>>>>>>> - Clang will be extended with the ability to
emit ODR tables using
>>>>>>>> ODR hashes
>>>>>>>> - LLD will be extended to read ODR tables from
object files
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have implemented a prototype of this feature.
It is available
>>>>>>>> here:
https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker and
>>>>>>>> some results from applying it to chromium are
here:
>>>>>>>> crbug.com/726071
>>>>>>>> As you can see it did indeed find a number of
real ODR violations
>>>>>>>> in Chromium, including some that wouldn't
be detectable using debug info.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're interested in what the format of
the ODR table would look
>>>>>>>> like, that prototype shows pretty much what I
had in mind, but I expect
>>>>>>>> many other aspects of the implementation to
change as it is upstreamed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Peter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170614/3acd11ef/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:43 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at
pcc.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:34 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev
<
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter
at pcc.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis
at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne
<peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Sean Silva
<chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very nice and simple implementation!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any statistics on how large these
odr tables are
>>>>>>>> compared to other object file data? I assume
that if these tables contain
>>>>>>>> full mangled symbol names, they could end up
being very large and may want
>>>>>>>> to share the symbol name strings with the
overall string table in the .o
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks
like the total size of
>>>>>>> the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the
object files, which isn't
>>>>>>> great. The current implementation only looks at
records, so I imagine that
>>>>>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings that
I'm currently creating.
>>>>>>> (I guess it's possible that some types will
have a mangled vtable name in
>>>>>>> the string table, so we may be able to share a
little that way.) Note
>>>>>>> however that this was without debug info.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One option for reducing size would be to
>>>>>>> 1) store hashes of ODR names in ODR tables, per
Rui's suggestion
>>>>>>> (alongside a reference to the name itself in the
string table)
>>>>>>> 2) compress the string table for the ODR names with
a standard
>>>>>>> compression algorithm like gzip.
>>>>>>> This wouldn't seem to affect link time
performance much because I
>>>>>>> think we should only need to look at the strings if
we see a ODR name hash
>>>>>>> match together with an ODR hash mismatch, which
would mean an ODR violation
>>>>>>> with a high probability (i.e. unless there was an
ODR name hash collision,
>>>>>>> we have found an ODR violation). If we don't
expect a lot of sharing with
>>>>>>> regular string tables (see below), it seems even
more reasonable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neat observation!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, it is a birthday problem type situation though,
so for a 32-bit
>>>>>> hash, we would expect a collision in about 1 in 2^16
distinct hashes (and
>>>>>> 2^16 seems pretty easy to hit in a large project). So
64-bit hashes might
>>>>>> be preferable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh right, good point, using a 64-bit hash does seem like a
good idea
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of
your initial
>>>>>>>> implementation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's
unit_tests (the largest
>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR
checks and 6.61s with ODR
>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute
terms it doesn't seem too
>>>>>>> bad. So I think this may be acceptable for an
initial implementation, but
>>>>>>> it certainly seems worth trying to do better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that things aren't currently
apples-to-apples, but how does
>>>>>> that compare to gold?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will measure it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For that unit_tests binary I measured the overhead at about 5
seconds
>>>> (average of 10 runs). That is with debug info, of course.
>>>>
>>>> W.r.t. LLD and having it always on by default (and hence making
it as
>>>>>>>> fast as possible), it seems like right now you
are implementing the
>>>>>>>> checking process with a hash table. That's
simple and fine for a first
>>>>>>>> implementation, but it's probably worth
mentioning in a comment the problem
>>>>>>>> of checking the tables, at least from the
linker's perspective, does fit
>>>>>>>> into a map-reduce pattern and could be easily
parallelized if needed. E.g.
>>>>>>>> a parallel sort to coalesce all entries for
symbols of the same name
>>>>>>>> followed by a parallel forEach to check each
bucket with the same symbol
>>>>>>>> name (roughly speaking).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, that's one approach. I was thinking of a
simpler approach
>>>>>>> where at compile time we sort ODR names by hash and
partition them using
>>>>>>> (say) the upper bits of the hash, so that at link
time we can have N
>>>>>>> threads each building a hash table for a specific
partition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course this work can be started right after
symbol resolution
>>>>>>> finishes and parallelised with the rest of the work
done by the linker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even better than doing it faster is just doing less
work. There's a
>>>>>>>> lot of work that the linker is already doing
that may be reusable for the
>>>>>>>> ODR checking.
>>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>>> - maybe we could get the coalescing step as a
byproduct of our
>>>>>>>> existing string deduping, which we are
generally doing anyway.
>>>>>>>> - we are already coalescing symbol names for
the symbol table. If
>>>>>>>> the ODR table is keyed off of symbols in the
binary that we are inserting
>>>>>>>> into the symbol table, then I think we could do
the entire ODR check with
>>>>>>>> no extra "string" work on LLD's
part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see Rui already mentioned some of this in
>>>>>>>>
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=726071#c4.
>>>>>>>> You mentioned that not everything is
necessarily directly keyed on
>>>>>>>> a symbol (such as types), but I think that it
would really simplify things
>>>>>>>> if the check was done as such. Do you have any
idea exactly how much of the
>>>>>>>> things that we want to check are not keyed on
symbols? If most things are
>>>>>>>> keyed on symbols, for the things we are not we
can just emit extra symbols
>>>>>>>> prefixed by __clang_odr_check_ or whatever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the current implementation only works with
records there is
>>>>>>> basically zero overlap right now between ODR names
and symbols. I suppose
>>>>>>> that I could estimate the amount of function
overlap in a hypothetical
>>>>>>> implementation that computes ODR hashes of
functions by comparing the
>>>>>>> number of *_odr functions after clang has finished
IRgen with the number
>>>>>>> after optimization finishes. This of course would
be strictly more than
>>>>>>> functions + types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't any function or symbol using the record
type have the type
>>>>>> name somewhere in it? If we used an offset+length
encoding (instead of
>>>>>> offset + NUL termination) we might be able to reuse it
then (at some cost
>>>>>> in finding the reference).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be possible with some work in the string table
builder. But
>>>>> at that point of course we're not dealing with regular
symbols any more. I
>>>>> guess we could have two ODR tables per object file: an
array of (ODR hash,
>>>>> location) tuples for ODR names that correspond to symbol
table symbols
>>>>> (i.e. Rui's proposal on the chromium bug), and an array
of (ODR name, ODR
>>>>> hash, location) tuples for all other ODR names. I guess if
we wanted a "low
>>>>> overhead" mode we could just omit the second table or
put fewer symbols in
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With debug info surely there is some sort of string
representing the
>>>>>> record name or something like that, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the record name on its own (they do appear but a bit
awkwardly --
>>>>> each namespace component is stored in a separate string),
but if the record
>>>>> has at least one member function the mangled type name will
appear
>>>>> somewhere in .debug_str, so we could in principle reuse
that with the
>>>>> offset/length trick.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we may have to have our "low-overhead"
user-facing behavior be
>>>>>> a bit more nuanced. E.g.:
>>>>>> 1. does this feature bloat object files significantly
>>>>>> 2. does this feature slow down link times significantly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Intuitively, it seems like we should be able to get 1.
when debug
>>>>>> info happens to be enabled (not sure about split
dwarf?) and possibly in
>>>>>> all cases at the cost of complexity. We may be able to
get 2. in all cases
>>>>>> with proper design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that would be my rough assessment as well. I think
we have a
>>>>> good shot at 1 for all cases with some of the ideas that
have been
>>>>> mentioned already. If we can avoid creating dependencies on
DWARF I think
>>>>> that would be ideal -- I'd ideally like this to work
for COFF as well,
>>>>> where you'd typically expect to find CodeView in object
files. If I were to
>>>>> try this I think the first thing that I would try is
hash/compression
>>>>> combined with the two ODR tables (no reuse for non-symbol
ODR names to
>>>>> start with, as compression may be enough on its own).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I developed a second prototype which uses hash/compression with
no
>>>> attempt to reuse. It is available here: https://github.com/pcc/
>>>> llvm-project/tree/odr-checker2
>>>>
>>>> For Chromium the object file size overhead was 536566007 bytes,
or in
>>>> relative terms about 25%, or about 4% with debug info. I
measured perf
>>>> overhead for unit_tests at about 6%, but after I moved the
checker onto
>>>> another thread, the overhead disappeared into the noise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still seems like quite a big increase.
>>>
>>> Any chance of compression?
>>>
>>
>> That was with compression -- the implementation compresses the parts of
>> the ODR table that aren't hashes (aside from the header and the
Clang
>> version, which is a small fixed cost), as well as the string table. The
>> hashes were left uncompressed because they are in the critical path of
the
>> linker and because I imagine that they wouldn't really be that
compressible.
>>
>
> I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't especially compressible -
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition about compression is that it works best
when the data contains repeated patterns. If we use a hash function with
good dispersion then I'd expect each hash to have little in common with
other hashes.

> and how much of the size increase is the compressed data V the
> uncompressed data?
>
The ratio was roughly 60% compressed data to 40% uncompressed data.

> Is it still in the hot path when parallelized?
>
Not right now according to my benchmarking, but decompression could push it
into the critical path if it ends up taking longer than the rest of the
work done by the linker after symbol resolution. On the same machine that I
used for benchmarking, gunzip'ing 200MB of /dev/urandom (which is roughly
what I'd expect the hashes to look like) takes around 1.1s, i.e. a not
insignificant fraction of lld's runtime.

> So I think the remaining gains would either be through limiting the number
>> of ODR table entries, or through reuse of data.
>>
>> Limiting might be something to explore -- one possibility is that we
>> could limit the ODR table entries to the declarations that are
"used" by a
>> particular translation unit (it appears that Clang tracks something
like
>> that in Decl::Used/Decl::Referenced, but I'm not sure if that is
exactly
>> what we need -- I think we would basically need to test for reference
>> reachability from the functions/globals that are IRgen'd).
>>
>
> Currently it has every type and function that is in the AST? Yeah,
that's
> a lot - perhaps it should be more like the things that go in the DWARF?
> (though would need to add some cases there - since the DWARF logic already
> relies on the ODR to not emit duplicates in some cases)
>
Just every record declaration -- Clang only supports ODR hashes for record
declarations right now. I understand that function declarations (including
function bodies) are still works in progress.

I think it should indeed just be roughly the things that go in the DWARF. I
think that at one point I observed that every record declaration, even
unused ones, were going into the DWARF, but I might have been mistaken
because I can no longer reproduce that. I'll take a closer look to see if I
can reuse what logic presumably already exists for DWARF.

In terms of reuse, it seems that of the 536566007 bytes
of
>> overhead, 319309579 were the compressed part of the ODR tables. So even
if
>> we achieved 100% sharing,
>>
>
> 100% sharing? You mean if all the data were compressed, and assuming the
> hashes were compressible at the same ratio as the other data?
>
Sorry, I mean if 100% of the data in the compressed part of the ODR table
could be eliminated by reusing data stored elsewhere (e.g. in the object
file string table or in the DWARF).

with the current scheme I think that our minimum achievable overhead
would
>> be ~15% (no debug info) or ~2% (with debug info).
>>
>>
>>> Could this go into .dwo files with Fission and be checked by dwp
>>> instead, perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> I think it could also work that way, yes.
>>
>> I'm reasonably happy with these figures, at least for a first
>>>> implementation. We may be able to do even better for file size
with reuse,
>>>> but I'd leave that for version 2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's the story with compatibility between versions, then? Is
there a
>>> version header?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the header contains a version number.
>>
>>
>>> Will old formats be supported by lld indefinitely? Not at all?
>>>
>>
>> I think we should drop support for old formats when we introduce a new
>> format. My understanding is that the ODR hash can change whenever Clang
>> changes (the implementation only performs ODR checking if all ODR
tables
>> were produced by the same revision of Clang), so there wouldn't
seem to be
>> a huge benefit in keeping support for old formats around.
>>
>
> I imagine it's possible people aren't necessarily going to rev lld
in
> exact lock-step with clang, but I could be wrong. (certainly binutils ld or
> gold aren't released/kept in lock-step with GCC, for example)
>
That's certainly possible, but I'd say that the bar for dropping
backwards
compatibility is lower because ODR tables are not required for correctness.
We could keep compatibility with the last version or so if it isn't too
burdensome, or otherwise print a warning.

Peter
>
>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue of retaining the ODR check for
functions even if they get
>>>>>>>> inlined may inherently pose an extra cost that
can't be folded into
>>>>>>>> existing work the linker is doing, so there
might be a reason for clang to
>>>>>>>> have a default mode that has practically no
linking overhead and one that
>>>>>>>> does more thorough checking but imposes extra
linking overhead. Think
>>>>>>>> something like a crazy boost library with
thousands of functions that get
>>>>>>>> inlined away, but have gigantic mangled names
and so precisely are the ones
>>>>>>>> that are going to impose extra cost on the
linker. Simply due to the extra
>>>>>>>> volume of strings that the linker would need to
look at, I don't think
>>>>>>>> there's a way to include checking of all
inlined function "for free" at the
>>>>>>>> linker level using the symbol approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess those inlined functions would still have
those symbol names
>>>>>>>> in debug info (I think?), so piggybacking on
the string deduplication we're
>>>>>>>> already doing might make it possible to fold
away the work in that case
>>>>>>>> (but then again, would still impose extra cost
with split dwarf...).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, let's wait to see what the actual
performance numbers are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter
Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose an ODR checker
feature for Clang and LLD. The
>>>>>>>>> feature would be similar to gold's
--detect-odr-violations feature, but
>>>>>>>>> better: we can rely on integration with
clang to avoid relying on debug
>>>>>>>>> info and to perform more precise matching.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that we use clang's
ability to create ODR hashes
>>>>>>>>> for declarations. ODR hashes are computed
using all information about a
>>>>>>>>> declaration that is ODR-relevant. If the
flag -fdetect-odr-violations is
>>>>>>>>> passed, Clang will store the ODR hashes in
a so-called ODR table in each
>>>>>>>>> object file. Each ODR table will contain a
mapping from mangled declaration
>>>>>>>>> names to ODR hashes. At link time, the
linker will read the ODR table and
>>>>>>>>> report any mismatches.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To make this work:
>>>>>>>>> - LLVM will be extended with the ability to
represent ODR tables
>>>>>>>>> in the IR and emit them to object files
>>>>>>>>> - Clang will be extended with the ability
to emit ODR tables using
>>>>>>>>> ODR hashes
>>>>>>>>> - LLD will be extended to read ODR tables
from object files
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have implemented a prototype of this
feature. It is available
>>>>>>>>> here:
https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker and
>>>>>>>>> some results from applying it to chromium
are here:
>>>>>>>>> crbug.com/726071
>>>>>>>>> As you can see it did indeed find a number
of real ODR violations
>>>>>>>>> in Chromium, including some that
wouldn't be detectable using debug info.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you're interested in what the format
of the ODR table would
>>>>>>>>> look like, that prototype shows pretty much
what I had in mind, but I
>>>>>>>>> expect many other aspects of the
implementation to change as it is
>>>>>>>>> upstreamed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>

-- 
-- 
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170613/0fce0504/attachment.html>

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:05 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:43 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at
pcc.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:34 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev
<
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne
<peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sean Silva
<chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne
<peter at pcc.me.uk
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Sean Silva
<chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very nice and simple implementation!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any statistics on how large
these odr tables are
>>>>>>>>> compared to other object file data? I
assume that if these tables contain
>>>>>>>>> full mangled symbol names, they could end
up being very large and may want
>>>>>>>>> to share the symbol name strings with the
overall string table in the .o
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks
like the total size of
>>>>>>>> the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of
the object files, which isn't
>>>>>>>> great. The current implementation only looks at
records, so I imagine that
>>>>>>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings
that I'm currently creating.
>>>>>>>> (I guess it's possible that some types will
have a mangled vtable name in
>>>>>>>> the string table, so we may be able to share a
little that way.) Note
>>>>>>>> however that this was without debug info.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One option for reducing size would be to
>>>>>>>> 1) store hashes of ODR names in ODR tables, per
Rui's suggestion
>>>>>>>> (alongside a reference to the name itself in
the string table)
>>>>>>>> 2) compress the string table for the ODR names
with a standard
>>>>>>>> compression algorithm like gzip.
>>>>>>>> This wouldn't seem to affect link time
performance much because I
>>>>>>>> think we should only need to look at the
strings if we see a ODR name hash
>>>>>>>> match together with an ODR hash mismatch, which
would mean an ODR violation
>>>>>>>> with a high probability (i.e. unless there was
an ODR name hash collision,
>>>>>>>> we have found an ODR violation). If we
don't expect a lot of sharing with
>>>>>>>> regular string tables (see below), it seems
even more reasonable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neat observation!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, it is a birthday problem type situation
though, so for a
>>>>>>> 32-bit hash, we would expect a collision in about 1
in 2^16 distinct hashes
>>>>>>> (and 2^16 seems pretty easy to hit in a large
project). So 64-bit hashes
>>>>>>> might be preferable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh right, good point, using a 64-bit hash does seem
like a good idea
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the
performance of your initial
>>>>>>>>> implementation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's
unit_tests (the largest
>>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR
checks and 6.61s with ODR
>>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute
terms it doesn't seem too
>>>>>>>> bad. So I think this may be acceptable for an
initial implementation, but
>>>>>>>> it certainly seems worth trying to do better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that things aren't currently
apples-to-apples, but how does
>>>>>>> that compare to gold?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will measure it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For that unit_tests binary I measured the overhead at about
5 seconds
>>>>> (average of 10 runs). That is with debug info, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> W.r.t. LLD and having it always on by default (and hence
making it as
>>>>>>>>> fast as possible), it seems like right now
you are implementing the
>>>>>>>>> checking process with a hash table.
That's simple and fine for a first
>>>>>>>>> implementation, but it's probably worth
mentioning in a comment the problem
>>>>>>>>> of checking the tables, at least from the
linker's perspective, does fit
>>>>>>>>> into a map-reduce pattern and could be
easily parallelized if needed. E.g.
>>>>>>>>> a parallel sort to coalesce all entries for
symbols of the same name
>>>>>>>>> followed by a parallel forEach to check
each bucket with the same symbol
>>>>>>>>> name (roughly speaking).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, that's one approach. I was thinking
of a simpler approach
>>>>>>>> where at compile time we sort ODR names by hash
and partition them using
>>>>>>>> (say) the upper bits of the hash, so that at
link time we can have N
>>>>>>>> threads each building a hash table for a
specific partition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course this work can be started right
after symbol
>>>>>>>> resolution finishes and parallelised with the
rest of the work done by the
>>>>>>>> linker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even better than doing it faster is just doing
less work. There's a
>>>>>>>>> lot of work that the linker is already
doing that may be reusable for the
>>>>>>>>> ODR checking.
>>>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>>>> - maybe we could get the coalescing step as
a byproduct of our
>>>>>>>>> existing string deduping, which we are
generally doing anyway.
>>>>>>>>> - we are already coalescing symbol names
for the symbol table. If
>>>>>>>>> the ODR table is keyed off of symbols in
the binary that we are inserting
>>>>>>>>> into the symbol table, then I think we
could do the entire ODR check with
>>>>>>>>> no extra "string" work on
LLD's part.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see Rui already mentioned some of this in
>>>>>>>>>
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=726071#c4.
>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that not everything is
necessarily directly keyed on
>>>>>>>>> a symbol (such as types), but I think that
it would really simplify things
>>>>>>>>> if the check was done as such. Do you have
any idea exactly how much of the
>>>>>>>>> things that we want to check are not keyed
on symbols? If most things are
>>>>>>>>> keyed on symbols, for the things we are not
we can just emit extra symbols
>>>>>>>>> prefixed by __clang_odr_check_ or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the current implementation only works
with records there is
>>>>>>>> basically zero overlap right now between ODR
names and symbols. I suppose
>>>>>>>> that I could estimate the amount of function
overlap in a hypothetical
>>>>>>>> implementation that computes ODR hashes of
functions by comparing the
>>>>>>>> number of *_odr functions after clang has
finished IRgen with the number
>>>>>>>> after optimization finishes. This of course
would be strictly more than
>>>>>>>> functions + types.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't any function or symbol using the
record type have the type
>>>>>>> name somewhere in it? If we used an offset+length
encoding (instead of
>>>>>>> offset + NUL termination) we might be able to reuse
it then (at some cost
>>>>>>> in finding the reference).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That may be possible with some work in the string table
builder. But
>>>>>> at that point of course we're not dealing with
regular symbols any more. I
>>>>>> guess we could have two ODR tables per object file: an
array of (ODR hash,
>>>>>> location) tuples for ODR names that correspond to
symbol table symbols
>>>>>> (i.e. Rui's proposal on the chromium bug), and an
array of (ODR name, ODR
>>>>>> hash, location) tuples for all other ODR names. I guess
if we wanted a "low
>>>>>> overhead" mode we could just omit the second table
or put fewer symbols in
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With debug info surely there is some sort of string
representing the
>>>>>>> record name or something like that, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the record name on its own (they do appear but a
bit awkwardly --
>>>>>> each namespace component is stored in a separate
string), but if the record
>>>>>> has at least one member function the mangled type name
will appear
>>>>>> somewhere in .debug_str, so we could in principle reuse
that with the
>>>>>> offset/length trick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we may have to have our
"low-overhead" user-facing behavior
>>>>>>> be a bit more nuanced. E.g.:
>>>>>>> 1. does this feature bloat object files
significantly
>>>>>>> 2. does this feature slow down link times
significantly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Intuitively, it seems like we should be able to get
1. when debug
>>>>>>> info happens to be enabled (not sure about split
dwarf?) and possibly in
>>>>>>> all cases at the cost of complexity. We may be able
to get 2. in all cases
>>>>>>> with proper design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that would be my rough assessment as well. I
think we have a
>>>>>> good shot at 1 for all cases with some of the ideas
that have been
>>>>>> mentioned already. If we can avoid creating
dependencies on DWARF I think
>>>>>> that would be ideal -- I'd ideally like this to
work for COFF as well,
>>>>>> where you'd typically expect to find CodeView in
object files. If I were to
>>>>>> try this I think the first thing that I would try is
hash/compression
>>>>>> combined with the two ODR tables (no reuse for
non-symbol ODR names to
>>>>>> start with, as compression may be enough on its own).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I developed a second prototype which uses hash/compression
with no
>>>>> attempt to reuse. It is available here:
>>>>> https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker2
>>>>>
>>>>> For Chromium the object file size overhead was 536566007
bytes, or in
>>>>> relative terms about 25%, or about 4% with debug info. I
measured perf
>>>>> overhead for unit_tests at about 6%, but after I moved the
checker onto
>>>>> another thread, the overhead disappeared into the noise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still seems like quite a big increase.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance of compression?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That was with compression -- the implementation compresses the
parts of
>>> the ODR table that aren't hashes (aside from the header and the
Clang
>>> version, which is a small fixed cost), as well as the string table.
The
>>> hashes were left uncompressed because they are in the critical path
of the
>>> linker and because I imagine that they wouldn't really be that
compressible.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't especially compressible
-
>>
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition about compression is that it works
best
> when the data contains repeated patterns. If we use a hash function with
> good dispersion then I'd expect each hash to have little in common with
> other hashes.
>
>
>> and how much of the size increase is the compressed data V the
>> uncompressed data?
>>
>
> The ratio was roughly 60% compressed data to 40% uncompressed data.
>
>
>> Is it still in the hot path when parallelized?
>>
>
> Not right now according to my benchmarking, but decompression could push
> it into the critical path if it ends up taking longer than the rest of the
> work done by the linker after symbol resolution. On the same machine that I
> used for benchmarking, gunzip'ing 200MB of /dev/urandom (which is
roughly
> what I'd expect the hashes to look like) takes around 1.1s, i.e. a not
> insignificant fraction of lld's runtime.
>
>
>> So I think the remaining gains would either be through limiting the
>>> number of ODR table entries, or through reuse of data.
>>>
>>> Limiting might be something to explore -- one possibility is that
we
>>> could limit the ODR table entries to the declarations that are
"used" by a
>>> particular translation unit (it appears that Clang tracks something
like
>>> that in Decl::Used/Decl::Referenced, but I'm not sure if that
is exactly
>>> what we need -- I think we would basically need to test for
reference
>>> reachability from the functions/globals that are IRgen'd).
>>>
>>
>> Currently it has every type and function that is in the AST? Yeah,
that's
>> a lot - perhaps it should be more like the things that go in the DWARF?
>> (though would need to add some cases there - since the DWARF logic
already
>> relies on the ODR to not emit duplicates in some cases)
>>
>
> Just every record declaration -- Clang only supports ODR hashes for record
> declarations right now. I understand that function declarations (including
> function bodies) are still works in progress.
>
> I think it should indeed just be roughly the things that go in the DWARF.
> I think that at one point I observed that every record declaration, even
> unused ones, were going into the DWARF, but I might have been mistaken
> because I can no longer reproduce that. I'll take a closer look to see
if I
> can reuse what logic presumably already exists for DWARF.
>
> In terms of reuse, it seems that of the 536566007 bytes of
>>> overhead, 319309579 were the compressed part of the ODR tables. So
even if
>>> we achieved 100% sharing,
>>>
>>
>> 100% sharing? You mean if all the data were compressed, and assuming
the
>> hashes were compressible at the same ratio as the other data?
>>
>
> Sorry, I mean if 100% of the data in the compressed part of the ODR table
> could be eliminated by reusing data stored elsewhere (e.g. in the object
> file string table or in the DWARF).
>
> with the current scheme I think that our minimum achievable overhead would
>>> be ~15% (no debug info) or ~2% (with debug info).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Could this go into .dwo files with Fission and be checked by
dwp
>>>> instead, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it could also work that way, yes.
>>>
>>> I'm reasonably happy with these figures, at least for a first
>>>>> implementation. We may be able to do even better for file
size with reuse,
>>>>> but I'd leave that for version 2.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the story with compatibility between versions, then?
Is there a
>>>> version header?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the header contains a version number.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Will old formats be supported by lld indefinitely? Not at all?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we should drop support for old formats when we introduce a
new
>>> format. My understanding is that the ODR hash can change whenever
Clang
>>> changes (the implementation only performs ODR checking if all ODR
tables
>>> were produced by the same revision of Clang), so there wouldn't
seem to be
>>> a huge benefit in keeping support for old formats around.
>>>
>>
>> I imagine it's possible people aren't necessarily going to rev
lld in
>> exact lock-step with clang, but I could be wrong. (certainly binutils
ld or
>> gold aren't released/kept in lock-step with GCC, for example)
>>
>
> That's certainly possible, but I'd say that the bar for dropping
backwards
> compatibility is lower because ODR tables are not required for correctness.
> We could keep compatibility with the last version or so if it isn't too
> burdensome, or otherwise print a warning.
>
They aren't required for correctness, but upgrading your compiler or linker
then silently losing ODR checking would be bad (or even not silently losing
it, but having no choice but to rev both to keep the functionality & hold
the ODR-cleanliness bar) - it's the sort of thing where if you lost the
checking, then gained it back again later, the regression cleanup would be
annoying/an impediment to using the feature.

Any idea what Daniel Jasper & co have been working on WRT ODR checking &
how this feature integrates or doesn't with their work? I imagine they
might be working on something more like a Clang Tooling style approach, but
I'm not sure.

- Dave

>
> Peter
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue of retaining the ODR check for
functions even if they
>>>>>>>>> get inlined may inherently pose an extra
cost that can't be folded into
>>>>>>>>> existing work the linker is doing, so there
might be a reason for clang to
>>>>>>>>> have a default mode that has practically no
linking overhead and one that
>>>>>>>>> does more thorough checking but imposes
extra linking overhead. Think
>>>>>>>>> something like a crazy boost library with
thousands of functions that get
>>>>>>>>> inlined away, but have gigantic mangled
names and so precisely are the ones
>>>>>>>>> that are going to impose extra cost on the
linker. Simply due to the extra
>>>>>>>>> volume of strings that the linker would
need to look at, I don't think
>>>>>>>>> there's a way to include checking of
all inlined function "for free" at the
>>>>>>>>> linker level using the symbol approach.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess those inlined functions would still
have those symbol names
>>>>>>>>> in debug info (I think?), so piggybacking
on the string deduplication we're
>>>>>>>>> already doing might make it possible to
fold away the work in that case
>>>>>>>>> (but then again, would still impose extra
cost with split dwarf...).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let's wait to see what the
actual performance numbers are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter
Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose an ODR checker
feature for Clang and LLD. The
>>>>>>>>>> feature would be similar to gold's
--detect-odr-violations feature, but
>>>>>>>>>> better: we can rely on integration with
clang to avoid relying on debug
>>>>>>>>>> info and to perform more precise
matching.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The basic idea is that we use
clang's ability to create ODR
>>>>>>>>>> hashes for declarations. ODR hashes are
computed using all information
>>>>>>>>>> about a declaration that is
ODR-relevant. If the flag
>>>>>>>>>> -fdetect-odr-violations is passed,
Clang will store the ODR hashes in a
>>>>>>>>>> so-called ODR table in each object
file. Each ODR table will contain a
>>>>>>>>>> mapping from mangled declaration names
to ODR hashes. At link time, the
>>>>>>>>>> linker will read the ODR table and
report any mismatches.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To make this work:
>>>>>>>>>> - LLVM will be extended with the
ability to represent ODR tables
>>>>>>>>>> in the IR and emit them to object files
>>>>>>>>>> - Clang will be extended with the
ability to emit ODR tables
>>>>>>>>>> using ODR hashes
>>>>>>>>>> - LLD will be extended to read ODR
tables from object files
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have implemented a prototype of this
feature. It is available
>>>>>>>>>> here:
https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker and
>>>>>>>>>> some results from applying it to
chromium are here:
>>>>>>>>>> crbug.com/726071
>>>>>>>>>> As you can see it did indeed find a
number of real ODR violations
>>>>>>>>>> in Chromium, including some that
wouldn't be detectable using debug info.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you're interested in what the
format of the ODR table would
>>>>>>>>>> look like, that prototype shows pretty
much what I had in mind, but I
>>>>>>>>>> expect many other aspects of the
implementation to change as it is
>>>>>>>>>> upstreamed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Peter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170614/91451507/attachment-0001.html>