Hi all, I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential and concurrent programs.>From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the followingdefinition of undef. "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers can use these undef values to optimize the program. However, on the other hand, with the LLVM Atomics and Concurrency Guide states that If code accesses a memory location from multiple threads at the same time, the resulting loads return 'undef'. This is different from the C++ memory model, which provides undefined behavior. What is the rationale for returning an undef on racing reads? LLVM Atomics and Concurrency guide also states the following "Note that speculative loads are allowed; a load which is part of a race returns undef, but does not have undefined behavior" If the speculative loads returns an undef and the returned value is used, then it results in an undefined behavior. Am I correct? If so, what is the purpose of returning an undef with a speculative load? Is it to ensure that the subsequent uses of the value of the speculatively introduced load is caught/detected by the optimization? Is it possible to separate the "undef" in a sequential setting and "undef" with speculative loads in a concurrent setting with separate undefs? Thanks, Santosh -- Santosh G Nagarakatte, PhD Student, Computer and Information Science Department University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia-19104 http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~santoshn
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi all, > > I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential > and concurrent programs. > > >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following > definition of undef. > "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that > the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". > LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers can > use these undef values to optimize the program. > > However, on the other hand, with the LLVM Atomics and Concurrency > Guide states that > If code accesses a memory location from multiple threads at the same > time, the resulting loads return 'undef'. > This is different from the C++ memory model, which provides undefined > behavior. What is the rationale for returning an undef on racing > reads? > > LLVM Atomics and Concurrency guide also states the following > "Note that speculative loads are allowed; a load which is part of a > race returns undef, but does not have undefined behavior" > > If the speculative loads returns an undef and the returned value is > used, then it results in an undefined behavior. Am I correct?It behaves like any other undef value... which do often lead to undefined behavior.> If so, what is the purpose of returning an undef with a speculative load? > Is it to ensure that the subsequent uses of the value of the > speculatively introduced load is caught/detected by the optimization?The point is primarily to allow optimizations like LICM to introduce loads whose value is never used. It also keeps consistent semantics through CodeGen, where some targets widen loads.> Is it possible to separate the "undef" in a sequential setting and > "undef" with speculative loads in a concurrent setting with separate > undefs?The intention is that they should have the same semantics. -Eli
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte > <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential >> and concurrent programs. >> >> >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following >> definition of undef. >> "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that >> the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". >> LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers can >> use these undef values to optimize the program. >> >> However, on the other hand, with the LLVM Atomics and Concurrency >> Guide states that >> If code accesses a memory location from multiple threads at the same >> time, the resulting loads return 'undef'. >> This is different from the C++ memory model, which provides undefined >> behavior. What is the rationale for returning an undef on racing >> reads? >> >> LLVM Atomics and Concurrency guide also states the following >> "Note that speculative loads are allowed; a load which is part of a >> race returns undef, but does not have undefined behavior" >> >> If the speculative loads returns an undef and the returned value is >> used, then it results in an undefined behavior. Am I correct? > > It behaves like any other undef value... which do often lead to > undefined behavior. > >> If so, what is the purpose of returning an undef with a speculative load? >> Is it to ensure that the subsequent uses of the value of the >> speculatively introduced load is caught/detected by the optimization? > > The point is primarily to allow optimizations like LICM to introduce > loads whose value is never used. It also keeps consistent semantics > through CodeGen, where some targets widen loads. > >> Is it possible to separate the "undef" in a sequential setting and >> "undef" with speculative loads in a concurrent setting with separate >> undefs? > > The intention is that they should have the same semantics.Suppose there are three threads T1, T2 and T3, T1 (S1 )stores to a location l as non-atomic, T2 then (S2)stores to l as SC-atomic, later T3 (L3)loads from l as SC-atomic. I think the load @ T3 should return undef, since it can see both writes from T1 T2. Then the question is if the SC store @ T2 --- S2 and the SC load @ T3 --- L3 introduces an acq/rel (synchronized-with) edge. This will affect if later conflicting accesses are ordered or not, and whether memory accesses are ordered makes load return undef or not. If the S2 and L3 still introduces an SW edge, the next question is suppose there is a later SC-load L3' @ T3, does it also return undef? But this potentially makes the SC atomic sequence S2 L3 L3' inconsistent --- later SC loads can read different writes from earlier loads if there are no SC-stores in between. So I think data-races SC/acq/rel atomics cannot introduce SW edges. Intuitively if the locations designed for locks are used by non-atomic memory accesses, the locks cannot behave correctly. Is it correct?> > -Eli >-- Jianzhou
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential >>> and concurrent programs. >>> >>> >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following >>> definition of undef. >>> "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that >>> the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". >>> LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers can >>> use these undef values to optimize the program. >>> >>> However, on the other hand, with the LLVM Atomics and Concurrency >>> Guide states that >>> If code accesses a memory location from multiple threads at the same >>> time, the resulting loads return 'undef'. >>> This is different from the C++ memory model, which provides undefined >>> behavior. What is the rationale for returning an undef on racing >>> reads? >>> >>> LLVM Atomics and Concurrency guide also states the following >>> "Note that speculative loads are allowed; a load which is part of a >>> race returns undef, but does not have undefined behavior" >>> >>> If the speculative loads returns an undef and the returned value is >>> used, then it results in an undefined behavior. Am I correct? >> >> It behaves like any other undef value... which do often lead to >> undefined behavior. >> >>> If so, what is the purpose of returning an undef with a speculative load? >>> Is it to ensure that the subsequent uses of the value of the >>> speculatively introduced load is caught/detected by the optimization? >> >> The point is primarily to allow optimizations like LICM to introduce >> loads whose value is never used. It also keeps consistent semantics >> through CodeGen, where some targets widen loads. >> >>> Is it possible to separate the "undef" in a sequential setting and >>> "undef" with speculative loads in a concurrent setting with separate >>> undefs? >> >> The intention is that they should have the same semantics. > > As for whether separating the sequential ``undef'' and the concurrent > ``undef'', there is an analogous problem that is why C defines > different undefined behaviors in term of contexts that result in > undefined behaviors. When designing any analysis tools for C to > prevent undefined behaviors, we can reason about which kinds of > undefined behaviors can be eliminated. So classifying undefined > behaviors helps at the case. > > In the LLVM setting, have we already defined different kinds of > ``undef'' in a sequential setting? The question is whether or not LLVM > can define them without considering a high-level language that is > compiled to the IR, since usually the semantics in the high-level > language indicates how to classify them. However, the undef values > introduced by racy loads seem to be new, for example, C++ and Java do > not have such concepts. Then is it worth to separate it from those > existing undefs? Can we get any benefit from the view of compiler > design if not distinguishing the undefs?The conceptual undef's here will never show up in the IR because it's extremely difficult to prove that a race exists. Most of the effort towards tracking undefined behavior more generally hasn't really centered around the presence of undef's in the IR. And I'm not sure they could be usefully classified because they tend to disappear from the IR quickly. (Putting llvmdev back on the cc list.) -Eli
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >>> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential >>>> and concurrent programs. >>>> >>>> >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following >>>> definition of undef. >>>> "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that >>>> the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". >>>> LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers can >>>> use these undef values to optimize the program. >>>> >>>> However, on the other hand, with the LLVM Atomics and Concurrency >>>> Guide states that >>>> If code accesses a memory location from multiple threads at the same >>>> time, the resulting loads return 'undef'. >>>> This is different from the C++ memory model, which provides undefined >>>> behavior. What is the rationale for returning an undef on racing >>>> reads? >>>> >>>> LLVM Atomics and Concurrency guide also states the following >>>> "Note that speculative loads are allowed; a load which is part of a >>>> race returns undef, but does not have undefined behavior" >>>> >>>> If the speculative loads returns an undef and the returned value is >>>> used, then it results in an undefined behavior. Am I correct? >>> >>> It behaves like any other undef value... which do often lead to >>> undefined behavior. >>> >>>> If so, what is the purpose of returning an undef with a speculative load? >>>> Is it to ensure that the subsequent uses of the value of the >>>> speculatively introduced load is caught/detected by the optimization? >>> >>> The point is primarily to allow optimizations like LICM to introduce >>> loads whose value is never used. It also keeps consistent semantics >>> through CodeGen, where some targets widen loads. >>> >>>> Is it possible to separate the "undef" in a sequential setting and >>>> "undef" with speculative loads in a concurrent setting with separate >>>> undefs? >>> >>> The intention is that they should have the same semantics. >> >> As for whether separating the sequential ``undef'' and the concurrent >> ``undef'', there is an analogous problem that is why C defines >> different undefined behaviors in term of contexts that result in >> undefined behaviors. When designing any analysis tools for C to >> prevent undefined behaviors, we can reason about which kinds of >> undefined behaviors can be eliminated. So classifying undefined >> behaviors helps at the case. >> >> In the LLVM setting, have we already defined different kinds of >> ``undef'' in a sequential setting? The question is whether or not LLVM >> can define them without considering a high-level language that is >> compiled to the IR, since usually the semantics in the high-level >> language indicates how to classify them. However, the undef values >> introduced by racy loads seem to be new, for example, C++ and Java do >> not have such concepts. Then is it worth to separate it from those >> existing undefs? Can we get any benefit from the view of compiler >> design if not distinguishing the undefs? > > The conceptual undef's here will never show up in the IR because it's > extremely difficult to prove that a race exists. > > Most of the effort towards tracking undefined behavior more generally > hasn't really centered around the presence of undef's in the IR. And > I'm not sure they could be usefully classified because they tend to > disappear from the IR quickly.Did you mean the undefined values tend to disappear from the IR of LLVM 3.0?> > (Putting llvmdev back on the cc list.) > > -Eli >-- Jianzhou