thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken [Jul 2015]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Chandler Carruth

2015-Jul-17 19:18 UTC

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:13 AM Evgeny Astigeevich <
evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com> wrote:
> It’s Dhrystone.
>Dhrystone has historically not been a good indicator of real-world
performance fluctuations, especially at this small of a shift.

I'd like to see if we see any fluctuation on larger and more realistic
application benchmarks. One advantage of the flag being set is that we
should get runs from folks who have automatic builds and runs periodically
from trunk. Those should help give an accurate picture.

>
>
> *From:* Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 July 2015 16:10
>
>
> *To:* Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List
>
> *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
>
>
>
> Can you say what Benchmark or give a test case so we understand the nature
> of the regression? As Gerolf said, that will be important to understand
> what is best to do.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 06:43 Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at
arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, the regression is stable. I double checked this. A full benchmark run
> consists of at least 10 sub-runs to validate the score.
>
> I also checked if there were regressions of this benchmark across
> different ARM hardware versions. I found all regressions of this benchmark
> were in range 1.6%-2%.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Evgeny Astigeevich
>
>
>
> *From:* Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 July 2015 07:52
> *To:* Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List; Michael Zolotukhin
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
>
>
>
> Hey, thanks for benchmarking.
>
>
>
> How stable is the 2% regression?
>
>
>
> Michael ran some benchmarks with GlobalsModRef completely disabled and the
> only differences were in the noise. This was a complete spec2k6 run along
> with some others. Based on the number of benchmarks run there, I'm
going to
> go ahead and submit these patches, but if you can clarify the impact here,
> we can look at potentially some other tradeoff. I'm not particularly
set on
> one set of defaults, etc, I just don't want to keep patches held up
based
> on that. We can flip the default back and forth as new data arrives.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM Evgeny Astigeevich <
> evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chandler,
>
>
>
> I ran couple benchmarks with LTO turned on and your patches on ARM
> hardware.
>
> There were no performance degradation of one benchmark and 2% slowdown of
> another benchmark.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Evgeny Astigeevich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Evgeny Astigeevich
> *Sent:* 15 July 2015 15:12
>
>
> *To:* 'Chandler Carruth'; Gerolf Hoflehner
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
>
>
>
> Hi Chandler,
>
>
>
> I would like to run some benchmarks on ARM hardware and to look at impact
> of your patches on LTO.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Evgeny Astigeevich
>
>
>
> *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu
> <llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Chandler Carruth
>
>
> *Sent:* 15 July 2015 10:45
> *To:* Chandler Carruth; Gerolf Hoflehner
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
>
>
>
> I've fixed the obvious bugs I spotted in r242281. These should be pure
> correctness improvements.
>
>
>
> I've sent the two patches I'm imagining to address the core issue
here:
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11213
>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11213&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=TDTMPyN-BRKio_S9jhFxP6vHW7gAN3F73DTvS3M46go&s=TjLIFmohippEitr9aFYFcADeLJeQ-z2E_LH0fpsL38Q&e=>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11214
>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11214&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=TDTMPyN-BRKio_S9jhFxP6vHW7gAN3F73DTvS3M46go&s=z8Wdu7ZruKrV5dqBOmaBxWe1aaiDWtf4it9ZI1dVweQ&e=>
>
>
>
> Currently, I have the unsafe alias results disabled by default, but with a
> flag that can re-enable them if needed. I don't feel really strongly
about
> which way the default is set -- but that may be because I don't have
lots
> of users relying on LTO. I'll let others indicate which way they would
be
> most comfortable.
>
>
>
> Some IRC conversations indicated that early benchmark results with GMR
> completely disabled weren't showing really significant swings, so maybe
> this relatively small reduction in power of GMR won't be too
problematic
> for folks. Either way, I'm open to the different approaches. It's
D11214
> that I care a lot about. =]
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the thoughts here!
>
> -Chandler
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:25 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Replying here, but several of the questions raised boil down to
"couldn't
> you make the usage of GetUnderlyingObject conservatively correct?".
I'll
> try and address that.
>
>
>
> I think this *is* the right approach, but I think it is very hard to do
> without effectively disabling this part of GlobalsModRef. That is, the easy
> ways are likely to fire very frequently IMO.
>
>
>
> The core idea is to detect a "no information" state coming out of
> GetUnderlyingObject (likely be providing a custom version just for
> GlobalsModRef and tailored to its use cases). This is particularly
> effective at avoiding the problems with the recursion limit. But let's
look
> at what cases we *wouldn't* return that. Here are the cases I see when
I
> thought about this last night with Hal, roughly in descending likelihood I
> would guess:
>
>
>
> 1) We detect some global or an alloca. In that case, even BasicAA would be
> sufficient to provide no-alias. GMR shouldn't be relevant.
>
>
>
> 2) We detect a phi, select, or inttoptr, and stop there.
>
>
>
> 3) We detect a load and stop there.
>
>
>
> 4) We detect a return from a function.
>
>
>
> 5) We detect an argument to the function.
>
>
>
> I strongly suspect the vast majority of queries hit #1. That's why
BasicAA
> is *so* effective. Both #4 and #5 I think are actually reasonable places
> for GMR to potentially say "no-alias" and provide useful
definitive
> information. But I also suspect these are the least common.
>
>
>
> So let's look at #2 and #3 because I think they're interesting. For
these,
> I think it is extremely hard to return "no-alias". It seems
extremely easy
> for a reasonable and innocuous change to the IR to introduce a phi or a
> select into one side of the GetUnderlyingObject but not the other. If that
> ever happens, we can't return "no-alias" for #2, or we need
to add really
> expensive updates. It also seems reasonable (if not as likely) to want
> adding a store and load to the IR to not trigger a miscompile. If it is
> possible for a valid optimization pass to do reg2mem on an SSA value, then
> that could happen to only one side of the paired GetUnderlyingObject and
>  break GMR with #3. If that seems like an unreasonable thing to do,
> consider loop re-rolling or other transformations which may need to take
> things in SSA form at move them out of SSA form. Even if we then try
> immediately to put it back *into* SSA form, before we do that we create a
> point where GMR cannot correctly return no-alias.
>
>
>
> So ultimately, I don't think we want to rely on GMR returning
"no-alias"
> for either #2 or #3 because of the challenge of actually updating it in all
> of the circumstances that could break them. That means that *only* #4 and
> #5 are going to return "no-alias" usefully. And even then,
function
> inlining and function outlining both break #4 and #5, so you have to
> preclude those transforms while GMR is active. And I have serious doubts
> about these providing enough value to be worth the cost.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the better way to approach this is the other way around. Rather
> than doing a backwards analysis to see if one location reaches and global
> and the other location doesn't reach a global, I think it would be much
> more effective to re-cast this as a forward analysis that determines all
> the memory locations in a function that come from outside the function, and
> use that to drive the no-alias responses.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
> I wouldn’t be willing to give up performance for hypothetical issues.
> Please protect all your changes with options. For some of your concerns it
> is probably hard to provide a test case that shows an/the actual issue.
>
>
>
> I certainly agree that it will be very hard to provide a test case and
> extremely rare to see this in the wild for most of these issues. As long as
> I can remove the problematic update API we currently have (which as its an
> API change can't really be put behind flags), I'm happy to have
flags
> control whether or not GMR uses the unsound / stale information to try to
> answer alias queries. Do you have any opinion about what the default value
> of the flags should be?
>
>
>
> I'll go ahead and prepare the patches, as it seems like we're all
ending
> up in the same position, and just wondering about the precise tradeoffs we
> want to settle on.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
>
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/cc76a419/attachment.html>

Michael Zolotukhin

2015-Jul-21 22:23 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

Hi Chandler,

We observed some regressions in our regular testing (despite I saw nothing
suspicious in my runs). I did accurate investigation and was able to reproduce
and track down the regression.
I found the exact request to GlobalsModRef that results in the performance loss
(I added a limit on number of requests into the implementation and bisected the
number to find the interesting request).

Here are the details:

We’re checking following two locations:

(lldb) p ((llvm::Instruction*)(LocA.Ptr))->dump()
  %arrayidx.i = getelementptr inbounds [1 x %struct.elt_list*], [1 x
%struct.elt_list*]* %te.i, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv.i
(lldb) p ((llvm::Instruction*)(LocB.Ptr))->dump()
@reg_values = internal unnamed_addr global %struct.varray_head_tag* null, align
8

and the function in question is “cselib_init”:
(lldb) p
((llvm::Instruction*)(LocA.Ptr))->getParent()->getParent()->getName()
(llvm::StringRef) $3 = (Data = "cselib_init", Length = 11)

Corresponding underlying values:
(lldb) p UV2->dump()
@reg_values = internal unnamed_addr global %struct.varray_head_tag* null, align
8
(lldb) p UV1->dump()
%32 = load %struct.varray_head_tag*, %struct.varray_head_tag** @reg_values,
align 8, !tbaa !2

Backtrace:
(lldb) bt                                                                       
* thread #1: tid = 0x120baaf, 0x00000001038b752a libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c10,
LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 570 at
GlobalsModRef.cpp:519, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason =
step over
  * frame #0: 0x00000001038b752a libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c10,
LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 570 at GlobalsModRef.cpp:519
    frame #1: 0x00000001038b82f7 libLTO.dylib`non-virtual thunk to (anonymous
namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c30,
LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 55 at GlobalsModRef.cpp:562
    frame #2: 0x00000001038d6aa8
libLTO.dylib`llvm::AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo(this=0x000000010eba5c30,
S=0x000000010a1a22e0, Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 120 at AliasAnalysis.cpp:288
    frame #3: 0x0000000103a0a814
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getPointerDependencyFrom(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
MemLoc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true, ScanIt=llvm::BasicBlock::iterator at
0x00007fff5fbf4390, BB=0x000000010a19ffa0, QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8) + 1908
at MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:570
    frame #4: 0x0000000103a0ffa5
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::GetNonLocalInfoForBlock(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true,
BB=0x000000010a19ffa0, Cache=0x0000000100f9d568, NumSortedEntries=0) + 2165 at
MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:965
    frame #5: 0x0000000103a0e3a9
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getNonLocalPointerDepFromBB(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Pointer=0x00007fff5fbf62a8,
Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true, StartBB=0x000000010a19ffa0,
Result=0x00007fff5fbf6bf0, Visited=0x00007fff5fbf6208, SkipFirstBlock=false) +
5897 at MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:1200
    frame #6: 0x0000000103a0cb3b
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getNonLocalPointerDependency(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Result=0x00007fff5fbf6bf0) + 635 at
MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:911
    frame #7: 0x000000010340c5b5 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::processNonLocalLoad(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
LI=0x000000010a1a20c8) + 101 at GVN.cpp:1706
    frame #8: 0x0000000103408eef libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::processLoad(this=0x000000010e6ce680, L=0x000000010a1a20c8) +
1551 at GVN.cpp:1905
    frame #9: 0x00000001034080fd libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::processInstruction(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
I=0x000000010a1a20c8) + 397 at GVN.cpp:2220
    frame #10: 0x0000000103407d1b libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::processBlock(this=0x000000010e6ce680, BB=0x000000010a19ffa0) +
251 at GVN.cpp:2394
    frame #11: 0x0000000103401755 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::iterateOnFunction(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
F=0x00000001085f69f8) + 1541 at GVN.cpp:2677
    frame #12: 0x0000000103400fef libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::GVN::runOnFunction(this=0x000000010e6ce680, F=0x00000001085f69f8) +
623 at GVN.cpp:2352
    frame #13: 0x00000001027cd05b
libLTO.dylib`llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(this=0x000000010eba6810,
F=0x00000001085f69f8) + 427 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1520
    frame #14: 0x00000001027cd375
libLTO.dylib`llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(this=0x000000010eba6810,
M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 117 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1540
    frame #15: 0x00000001027cdda1 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
namespace)::MPPassManager::runOnModule(this=0x000000010e6cbaf0,
M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 1409 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1596
    frame #16: 0x00000001027cd636
libLTO.dylib`llvm::legacy::PassManagerImpl::run(this=0x000000010e6cb740,
M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 310 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1698
    frame #17: 0x00000001027ce521
libLTO.dylib`llvm::legacy::PassManager::run(this=0x00007fff5fbf82b8,
M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 33 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1729


The function body is in the attached file.



GlobalsModRef reports NoAlias for this pair, here:
  if (GV1 || GV2) {
    // If the global's address is taken, pretend we don't know it's
a pointer to
    // the global.
    if (GV1 && !NonAddressTakenGlobals.count(GV1))
      GV1 = nullptr;
    if (GV2 && !NonAddressTakenGlobals.count(GV2))
      GV2 = nullptr;

    // If the two pointers are derived from two different non-addr-taken
    // globals, or if one is and the other isn't, we know these can't
alias.
    if ((GV1 || GV2) && GV1 != GV2)
      return NoAlias;

    // Otherwise if they are both derived from the same addr-taken global, we
    // can't know the two accesses don't overlap.
  }


Thanks,
Michael
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:13 AM Evgeny Astigeevich <evgeny.astigeevich
at arm.com <mailto:evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com>> wrote:
> It’s Dhrystone.
> 
> Dhrystone has historically not been a good indicator of real-world
performance fluctuations, especially at this small of a shift.
> 
> I'd like to see if we see any fluctuation on larger and more realistic
application benchmarks. One advantage of the flag being set is that we should
get runs from folks who have automatic builds and runs periodically from trunk.
Those should help give an accurate picture.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc
at gmail.com>]
> Sent: 17 July 2015 16:10
> 
> 
> To: Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> 
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
> 
>  
> 
> Can you say what Benchmark or give a test case so we understand the nature
of the regression? As Gerolf said, that will be important to understand what is
best to do.
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 06:43 Evgeny Astigeevich <Evgeny.Astigeevich at
arm.com <mailto:Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com>> wrote:
> 
> Yes, the regression is stable. I double checked this. A full benchmark run
consists of at least 10 sub-runs to validate the score.
> 
> I also checked if there were regressions of this benchmark across different
ARM hardware versions. I found all regressions of this benchmark were in range
1.6%-2%.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Evgeny Astigeevich
> 
>  
> 
> From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc
at gmail.com>]
> Sent: 17 July 2015 07:52
> To: Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; Michael Zolotukhin
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
> 
>  
> 
> Hey, thanks for benchmarking.
> 
>  
> 
> How stable is the 2% regression?
> 
>  
> 
> Michael ran some benchmarks with GlobalsModRef completely disabled and the
only differences were in the noise. This was a complete spec2k6 run along with
some others. Based on the number of benchmarks run there, I'm going to go
ahead and submit these patches, but if you can clarify the impact here, we can
look at potentially some other tradeoff. I'm not particularly set on one set
of defaults, etc, I just don't want to keep patches held up based on that.
We can flip the default back and forth as new data arrives.
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM Evgeny Astigeevich <evgeny.astigeevich
at arm.com <mailto:evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chandler,
> 
>  
> 
> I ran couple benchmarks with LTO turned on and your patches on ARM
hardware.
> 
> There were no performance degradation of one benchmark and 2% slowdown of
another benchmark.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Evgeny Astigeevich
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
<mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] On Behalf Of Evgeny Astigeevich
> Sent: 15 July 2015 15:12
> 
> 
> To: 'Chandler Carruth'; Gerolf Hoflehner
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Chandler,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to run some benchmarks on ARM hardware and to look at impact
of your patches on LTO.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Evgeny Astigeevich
> 
>  
> 
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
<mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] On Behalf Of Chandler Carruth
> 
> 
> Sent: 15 July 2015 10:45
> To: Chandler Carruth; Gerolf Hoflehner
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
> 
>  
> 
> I've fixed the obvious bugs I spotted in r242281. These should be pure
correctness improvements.
> 
>  
> 
> I've sent the two patches I'm imagining to address the core issue
here:
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11213
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11213&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=TDTMPyN-BRKio_S9jhFxP6vHW7gAN3F73DTvS3M46go&s=TjLIFmohippEitr9aFYFcADeLJeQ-z2E_LH0fpsL38Q&e=>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11214
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11214&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=TDTMPyN-BRKio_S9jhFxP6vHW7gAN3F73DTvS3M46go&s=z8Wdu7ZruKrV5dqBOmaBxWe1aaiDWtf4it9ZI1dVweQ&e=>
>  
> 
> Currently, I have the unsafe alias results disabled by default, but with a
flag that can re-enable them if needed. I don't feel really strongly about
which way the default is set -- but that may be because I don't have lots of
users relying on LTO. I'll let others indicate which way they would be most
comfortable.
> 
>  
> 
> Some IRC conversations indicated that early benchmark results with GMR
completely disabled weren't showing really significant swings, so maybe this
relatively small reduction in power of GMR won't be too problematic for
folks. Either way, I'm open to the different approaches. It's D11214
that I care a lot about. =]
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for all the thoughts here!
> 
> -Chandler
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:25 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Replying here, but several of the questions raised boil down to
"couldn't you make the usage of GetUnderlyingObject conservatively
correct?". I'll try and address that.
> 
>  
> 
> I think this *is* the right approach, but I think it is very hard to do
without effectively disabling this part of GlobalsModRef. That is, the easy ways
are likely to fire very frequently IMO.
> 
>  
> 
> The core idea is to detect a "no information" state coming out of
GetUnderlyingObject (likely be providing a custom version just for GlobalsModRef
and tailored to its use cases). This is particularly effective at avoiding the
problems with the recursion limit. But let's look at what cases we
*wouldn't* return that. Here are the cases I see when I thought about this
last night with Hal, roughly in descending likelihood I would guess:
> 
>  
> 
> 1) We detect some global or an alloca. In that case, even BasicAA would be
sufficient to provide no-alias. GMR shouldn't be relevant.
> 
>  
> 
> 2) We detect a phi, select, or inttoptr, and stop there.
> 
>  
> 
> 3) We detect a load and stop there.
> 
>  
> 
> 4) We detect a return from a function.
> 
>  
> 
> 5) We detect an argument to the function.
> 
>  
> 
> I strongly suspect the vast majority of queries hit #1. That's why
BasicAA is *so* effective. Both #4 and #5 I think are actually reasonable places
for GMR to potentially say "no-alias" and provide useful definitive
information. But I also suspect these are the least common.
> 
>  
> 
> So let's look at #2 and #3 because I think they're interesting. For
these, I think it is extremely hard to return "no-alias". It seems
extremely easy for a reasonable and innocuous change to the IR to introduce a
phi or a select into one side of the GetUnderlyingObject but not the other. If
that ever happens, we can't return "no-alias" for #2, or we need
to add really expensive updates. It also seems reasonable (if not as likely) to
want adding a store and load to the IR to not trigger a miscompile. If it is
possible for a valid optimization pass to do reg2mem on an SSA value, then that
could happen to only one side of the paired GetUnderlyingObject and  break GMR
with #3. If that seems like an unreasonable thing to do, consider loop
re-rolling or other transformations which may need to take things in SSA form at
move them out of SSA form. Even if we then try immediately to put it back *into*
SSA form, before we do that we create a point where GMR cannot correctly return
no-alias.
> 
>  
> 
> So ultimately, I don't think we want to rely on GMR returning
"no-alias" for either #2 or #3 because of the challenge of actually
updating it in all of the circumstances that could break them. That means that
*only* #4 and #5 are going to return "no-alias" usefully. And even
then, function inlining and function outlining both break #4 and #5, so you have
to preclude those transforms while GMR is active. And I have serious doubts
about these providing enough value to be worth the cost.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I think the better way to approach this is the other way around. Rather
than doing a backwards analysis to see if one location reaches and global and
the other location doesn't reach a global, I think it would be much more
effective to re-cast this as a forward analysis that determines all the memory
locations in a function that come from outside the function, and use that to
drive the no-alias responses.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at
apple.com <mailto:ghoflehner at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> I wouldn’t be willing to give up performance for hypothetical issues.
Please protect all your changes with options. For some of your concerns it is
probably hard to provide a test case that shows an/the actual issue.
> 
>  
> 
> I certainly agree that it will be very hard to provide a test case and
extremely rare to see this in the wild for most of these issues. As long as I
can remove the problematic update API we currently have (which as its an API
change can't really be put behind flags), I'm happy to have flags
control whether or not GMR uses the unsound / stale information to try to answer
alias queries. Do you have any opinion about what the default value of the flags
should be?
> 
>  
> 
> I'll go ahead and prepare the patches, as it seems like we're all
ending up in the same position, and just wondering about the precise tradeoffs
we want to settle on.
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> 
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
> 
> ______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150721/a25a4705/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: lldb.txt
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150721/a25a4705/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150721/a25a4705/attachment-0001.html>

Daniel Berlin

2015-Jul-21 22:34 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

Based on function names and structures, this is some version of GCC :)
Any way you can post the entire .ll file?

Because it's globalsmodref, it's hard to debug without the other
functions, since it goes over all the functions to determine address
takenness, etc :)



On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Michael Zolotukhin
<mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote:> Hi Chandler,
>
> We observed some regressions in our regular testing (despite I saw nothing
> suspicious in my runs). I did accurate investigation and was able to
> reproduce and track down the regression.
> I found the exact request to GlobalsModRef that results in the performance
> loss (I added a limit on number of requests into the implementation and
> bisected the number to find the interesting request).
>
> Here are the details:
>
> We’re checking following two locations:
>
> (lldb) p ((llvm::Instruction*)(LocA.Ptr))->dump()
>   %arrayidx.i = getelementptr inbounds [1 x %struct.elt_list*], [1 x
> %struct.elt_list*]* %te.i, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv.i
> (lldb) p ((llvm::Instruction*)(LocB.Ptr))->dump()
> @reg_values = internal unnamed_addr global %struct.varray_head_tag* null,
> align 8
>
> and the function in question is “cselib_init”:
> (lldb) p
>
((llvm::Instruction*)(LocA.Ptr))->getParent()->getParent()->getName()
> (llvm::StringRef) $3 = (Data = "cselib_init", Length = 11)
>
> Corresponding underlying values:
> (lldb) p UV2->dump()
> @reg_values = internal unnamed_addr global %struct.varray_head_tag* null,
> align 8
> (lldb) p UV1->dump()
> %32 = load %struct.varray_head_tag*, %struct.varray_head_tag** @reg_values,
> align 8, !tbaa !2
>
> Backtrace:
> (lldb) bt
> * thread #1: tid = 0x120baaf, 0x00000001038b752a libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c10,
> LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 570 at
> GlobalsModRef.cpp:519, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason
= step
> over
>   * frame #0: 0x00000001038b752a libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c10,
> LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 570 at
> GlobalsModRef.cpp:519
>     frame #1: 0x00000001038b82f7 libLTO.dylib`non-virtual thunk to
> (anonymous namespace)::GlobalsModRef::alias(this=0x000000010eba5c30,
> LocA=0x00007fff5fbf4198, LocB=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 55 at
> GlobalsModRef.cpp:562
>     frame #2: 0x00000001038d6aa8
> libLTO.dylib`llvm::AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo(this=0x000000010eba5c30,
> S=0x000000010a1a22e0, Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268) + 120 at
AliasAnalysis.cpp:288
>     frame #3: 0x0000000103a0a814
>
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getPointerDependencyFrom(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
> MemLoc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true, ScanIt=llvm::BasicBlock::iterator
at
> 0x00007fff5fbf4390, BB=0x000000010a19ffa0, QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8) +
> 1908 at MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:570
>     frame #4: 0x0000000103a0ffa5
>
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::GetNonLocalInfoForBlock(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
> QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true,
> BB=0x000000010a19ffa0, Cache=0x0000000100f9d568, NumSortedEntries=0) + 2165
> at MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:965
>     frame #5: 0x0000000103a0e3a9
>
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getNonLocalPointerDepFromBB(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
> QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Pointer=0x00007fff5fbf62a8,
> Loc=0x00007fff5fbf6268, isLoad=true, StartBB=0x000000010a19ffa0,
> Result=0x00007fff5fbf6bf0, Visited=0x00007fff5fbf6208,
SkipFirstBlock=false)
> + 5897 at MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:1200
>     frame #6: 0x0000000103a0cb3b
>
libLTO.dylib`llvm::MemoryDependenceAnalysis::getNonLocalPointerDependency(this=0x000000010e6cf0c0,
> QueryInst=0x000000010a1a20c8, Result=0x00007fff5fbf6bf0) + 635 at
> MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp:911
>     frame #7: 0x000000010340c5b5 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::processNonLocalLoad(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
> LI=0x000000010a1a20c8) + 101 at GVN.cpp:1706
>     frame #8: 0x0000000103408eef libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::processLoad(this=0x000000010e6ce680, L=0x000000010a1a20c8)
> + 1551 at GVN.cpp:1905
>     frame #9: 0x00000001034080fd libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::processInstruction(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
> I=0x000000010a1a20c8) + 397 at GVN.cpp:2220
>     frame #10: 0x0000000103407d1b libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::processBlock(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
> BB=0x000000010a19ffa0) + 251 at GVN.cpp:2394
>     frame #11: 0x0000000103401755 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::iterateOnFunction(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
> F=0x00000001085f69f8) + 1541 at GVN.cpp:2677
>     frame #12: 0x0000000103400fef libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::GVN::runOnFunction(this=0x000000010e6ce680,
> F=0x00000001085f69f8) + 623 at GVN.cpp:2352
>     frame #13: 0x00000001027cd05b
> libLTO.dylib`llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(this=0x000000010eba6810,
> F=0x00000001085f69f8) + 427 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1520
>     frame #14: 0x00000001027cd375
> libLTO.dylib`llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(this=0x000000010eba6810,
> M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 117 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1540
>     frame #15: 0x00000001027cdda1 libLTO.dylib`(anonymous
> namespace)::MPPassManager::runOnModule(this=0x000000010e6cbaf0,
> M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 1409 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1596
>     frame #16: 0x00000001027cd636
> libLTO.dylib`llvm::legacy::PassManagerImpl::run(this=0x000000010e6cb740,
> M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 310 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1698
>     frame #17: 0x00000001027ce521
> libLTO.dylib`llvm::legacy::PassManager::run(this=0x00007fff5fbf82b8,
> M=0x000000010115c5f0) + 33 at LegacyPassManager.cpp:1729
>
>
> The function body is in the attached file.
>
>
>
> GlobalsModRef reports NoAlias for this pair, here:
>   if (GV1 || GV2) {
>     // If the global's address is taken, pretend we don't know
it's a
> pointer to
>     // the global.
>     if (GV1 && !NonAddressTakenGlobals.count(GV1))
>       GV1 = nullptr;
>     if (GV2 && !NonAddressTakenGlobals.count(GV2))
>       GV2 = nullptr;
>
>     // If the two pointers are derived from two different non-addr-taken
>     // globals, or if one is and the other isn't, we know these
can't alias.
>     if ((GV1 || GV2) && GV1 != GV2)
>       return NoAlias;
>
>     // Otherwise if they are both derived from the same addr-taken global,
> we
>     // can't know the two accesses don't overlap.
>   }
>
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:13 AM Evgeny Astigeevich
> <evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> It’s Dhrystone.
>
> Dhrystone has historically not been a good indicator of real-world
> performance fluctuations, especially at this small of a shift.
>
> I'd like to see if we see any fluctuation on larger and more realistic
> application benchmarks. One advantage of the flag being set is that we
> should get runs from folks who have automatic builds and runs periodically
> from trunk. Those should help give an accurate picture.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 17 July 2015 16:10
>>
>>
>> To: Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>>
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely
broken
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you say what Benchmark or give a test case so we understand the
nature
>> of the regression? As Gerolf said, that will be important to understand
what
>> is best to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 06:43 Evgeny Astigeevich
>> <Evgeny.Astigeevich at arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the regression is stable. I double checked this. A full benchmark
run
>> consists of at least 10 sub-runs to validate the score.
>>
>> I also checked if there were regressions of this benchmark across
>> different ARM hardware versions. I found all regressions of this
benchmark
>> were in range 1.6%-2%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Evgeny Astigeevich
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 17 July 2015 07:52
>> To: Evgeny Astigeevich; Chandler Carruth
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; Michael Zolotukhin
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely
broken
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, thanks for benchmarking.
>>
>>
>>
>> How stable is the 2% regression?
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael ran some benchmarks with GlobalsModRef completely disabled and
the
>> only differences were in the noise. This was a complete spec2k6 run
along
>> with some others. Based on the number of benchmarks run there, I'm
going to
>> go ahead and submit these patches, but if you can clarify the impact
here,
>> we can look at potentially some other tradeoff. I'm not
particularly set on
>> one set of defaults, etc, I just don't want to keep patches held up
based on
>> that. We can flip the default back and forth as new data arrives.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM Evgeny Astigeevich
>> <evgeny.astigeevich at arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chandler,
>>
>>
>>
>> I ran couple benchmarks with LTO turned on and your patches on ARM
>> hardware.
>>
>> There were no performance degradation of one benchmark and 2% slowdown
of
>> another benchmark.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Evgeny Astigeevich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Evgeny Astigeevich
>> Sent: 15 July 2015 15:12
>>
>>
>> To: 'Chandler Carruth'; Gerolf Hoflehner
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely
broken
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chandler,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to run some benchmarks on ARM hardware and to look at
impact
>> of your patches on LTO.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Evgeny Astigeevich
>>
>>
>>
>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Chandler Carruth
>>
>>
>> Sent: 15 July 2015 10:45
>> To: Chandler Carruth; Gerolf Hoflehner
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely
broken
>>
>>
>>
>> I've fixed the obvious bugs I spotted in r242281. These should be
pure
>> correctness improvements.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've sent the two patches I'm imagining to address the core
issue here:
>>
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11213
>>
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11214
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently, I have the unsafe alias results disabled by default, but
with a
>> flag that can re-enable them if needed. I don't feel really
strongly about
>> which way the default is set -- but that may be because I don't
have lots of
>> users relying on LTO. I'll let others indicate which way they would
be most
>> comfortable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some IRC conversations indicated that early benchmark results with GMR
>> completely disabled weren't showing really significant swings, so
maybe this
>> relatively small reduction in power of GMR won't be too problematic
for
>> folks. Either way, I'm open to the different approaches. It's
D11214 that I
>> care a lot about. =]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the thoughts here!
>>
>> -Chandler
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:25 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Replying here, but several of the questions raised boil down to
"couldn't
>> you make the usage of GetUnderlyingObject conservatively
correct?". I'll try
>> and address that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this *is* the right approach, but I think it is very hard to do
>> without effectively disabling this part of GlobalsModRef. That is, the
easy
>> ways are likely to fire very frequently IMO.
>>
>>
>>
>> The core idea is to detect a "no information" state coming
out of
>> GetUnderlyingObject (likely be providing a custom version just for
>> GlobalsModRef and tailored to its use cases). This is particularly
effective
>> at avoiding the problems with the recursion limit. But let's look
at what
>> cases we *wouldn't* return that. Here are the cases I see when I
thought
>> about this last night with Hal, roughly in descending likelihood I
would
>> guess:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) We detect some global or an alloca. In that case, even BasicAA would
be
>> sufficient to provide no-alias. GMR shouldn't be relevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) We detect a phi, select, or inttoptr, and stop there.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) We detect a load and stop there.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) We detect a return from a function.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5) We detect an argument to the function.
>>
>>
>>
>> I strongly suspect the vast majority of queries hit #1. That's why
BasicAA
>> is *so* effective. Both #4 and #5 I think are actually reasonable
places for
>> GMR to potentially say "no-alias" and provide useful
definitive information.
>> But I also suspect these are the least common.
>>
>>
>>
>> So let's look at #2 and #3 because I think they're interesting.
For these,
>> I think it is extremely hard to return "no-alias". It seems
extremely easy
>> for a reasonable and innocuous change to the IR to introduce a phi or a
>> select into one side of the GetUnderlyingObject but not the other. If
that
>> ever happens, we can't return "no-alias" for #2, or we
need to add really
>> expensive updates. It also seems reasonable (if not as likely) to want
>> adding a store and load to the IR to not trigger a miscompile. If it is
>> possible for a valid optimization pass to do reg2mem on an SSA value,
then
>> that could happen to only one side of the paired GetUnderlyingObject
and
>> break GMR with #3. If that seems like an unreasonable thing to do,
consider
>> loop re-rolling or other transformations which may need to take things
in
>> SSA form at move them out of SSA form. Even if we then try immediately
to
>> put it back *into* SSA form, before we do that we create a point where
GMR
>> cannot correctly return no-alias.
>>
>>
>>
>> So ultimately, I don't think we want to rely on GMR returning
"no-alias"
>> for either #2 or #3 because of the challenge of actually updating it in
all
>> of the circumstances that could break them. That means that *only* #4
and #5
>> are going to return "no-alias" usefully. And even then,
function inlining
>> and function outlining both break #4 and #5, so you have to preclude
those
>> transforms while GMR is active. And I have serious doubts about these
>> providing enough value to be worth the cost.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the better way to approach this is the other way around. Rather
>> than doing a backwards analysis to see if one location reaches and
global
>> and the other location doesn't reach a global, I think it would be
much more
>> effective to re-cast this as a forward analysis that determines all the
>> memory locations in a function that come from outside the function, and
use
>> that to drive the no-alias responses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at
apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn’t be willing to give up performance for hypothetical issues.
>> Please protect all your changes with options. For some of your concerns
it
>> is probably hard to provide a test case that shows an/the actual issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> I certainly agree that it will be very hard to provide a test case and
>> extremely rare to see this in the wild for most of these issues. As
long as
>> I can remove the problematic update API we currently have (which as its
an
>> API change can't really be put behind flags), I'm happy to have
flags
>> control whether or not GMR uses the unsound / stale information to try
to
>> answer alias queries. Do you have any opinion about what the default
value
>> of the flags should be?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll go ahead and prepare the patches, as it seems like we're
all ending
>> up in the same position, and just wondering about the precise tradeoffs
we
>> want to settle on.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

Maybe Matching Threads

Search for more reasonably related threads

llvm dev - Jul 2015 - [LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken

Maybe Matching Threads