llvm dev - Dec 2015 - RFC: New function attribute HasInaccessibleState

>what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call that
private).
malloc and free could both use global variables that are defined in libc,
but are inaccessible to the program under compilation.
>if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal state, then malloc()
cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
Which is why it would be preferable to call it "inaccessible" state
rather
than "internal".
>It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc with
respect to a free.
No, it would also prevent interchanging the order of malloc and free, since
they both maintain states (which can be shared, but not accessible to the
program under compilation) and the swapping order could result in a
different final state.
>At the cost of some redundancy, I think a new attribute is needed.
@hal. I'm not sure what this implies. Does the semantics of the attribute
in the first mail sound right to you?
> that'd be redefining the semantics of ReadNone. ReadNone allows elision
of a call if its result is unused,
@James.  That right. Optimizations should hereafter (if the proposed
attribute is accepted) be more careful in interpreting ReadNone. If the
call also has HasInaccessibleState, it shouldn't remove the call, even if
the call takes no arguments or its return value isn't, because it could be
modifying some internal state.


  - Vaivaswatha

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at
compilertree.com>
> wrote:
>
> >is this "internal state” supposed to be private to the function?
> It could be private or not. Hence the name "inaccessible", to
mean that
> the program under compilation has no access to the state. So while printf
> and malloc (for example) could share state in libc, the program under
> compilation cannot access this state.
>
>
> This is still not clear to me, you’re saying “it could be private or not”:
> what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call that
> private).
>
> Now, from the point of view of the compiler, malloc and free are two
> separate functions, if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal
> state, then malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
>
> >how this flag would prevent the last “optimization” you’re illustrating
> Assuming you are referring to the quoted examples, currently these
> optimizations are not happening anyway (from what I understand). The issue
> is that, after malloc/free are tagged with "ReadNone", such
transforms may
> happen. Hence to prevent that, the additional flag denoting that these
> functions maintain an internal state.
>
>
> I’m questioning why would this flag solve that, it does not seem to to me.
> It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc with
> respect to a free.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>   - Vaivaswatha
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This email is in continuation to the mail thread
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-December/092996.html, to
>> propose a new function attribute that can convey that a function
maintains
>> state, but this state is inaccessible to the rest of the program under
>> compilation.
>>
>> Such a flag could be added to most libc/system calls such as
>> printf/malloc/free. (libc and system calls do access/modify internal
>> variables such as errno).
>>
>> Example attributes (in addition to what are already set):
>> malloc/free: HasInaccessibleState, ReadNone
>> printf: HasInaccessibleState, ArgMemOnly
>> realloc: HasInaccessibleState, ReadOnly (not sure).
>>
>> The intention behind introducing this attribute is to relax the
>> conditions in GlobalsAA as below:
>> (this code is in GlobalsAAResult::AnalyzeCallGraph)
>>
>>        if (F->isDeclaration()) {
>>          // Try to get mod/ref behaviour from function attributes.
>> -        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory()) {
>> +        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory() ||
F->onlyAccessesArgMemory()) {
>>            // Can't do better than that!
>>          } else if (F->onlyReadsMemory()) {
>>            FunctionEffect |= Ref;
>>            if (!F->isIntrinsic())
>>              // This function might call back into the module and read
a global -
>>              // consider every global as possibly being read by this
function.
>>              FR.MayReadAnyGlobal = true;
>>          } else {
>>            FunctionEffect |= ModRef;
>>            // Can't say anything useful unless it's an
intrinsic - they don't
>>            // read or write global variables of the kind considered
here.
>>            KnowNothing = !F->isIntrinsic();
>>          }
>>          continue;
>>        }
>>
>> This relaxation allows functions that (transitively) call library
>> functions (such as printf/malloc) to still maintain and propagate
GlobalsAA
>> info. In general, this adds more precision to the description of these
>> functions.
>>
>> Concerns regarding impact on other optimizations (I'm repeating a
few
>> examples that Hal mentioned earlier).
>>
>> 1.
>> >A readnone function is one whose output is a function only of its
>> inputs, and if you have this:
>> >
>> >  int *x = malloc(4);
>> >  *x = 2;
>> >  int *y = malloc(4);
>> >  *y = 4;
>> > you certainly don't want EarlyCSE to replace the second call
to malloc
>> with the result of the first (which it will happily do if you mark
malloc
>> as readnone).
>>
>> For malloc, even though ReadNone is set now (as proposed above),
EarlyCSE
>> should be taught to respect the HasInaccessibleState and not combine
>> functions that maintain internal states. Similarly other optimizations
>> (such as DCE) must be taught to respect the flag.
>>
>> 2.
>> >void foo(char * restrict s1, char * restrict s2) {
>> >  printf(s1);
>> >  printf(s2);
>> >}
>>
>> >If printf is argmemonly, then we could interchange the two printf
calls.
>>
>> In this example too, printf maintains an internal state, preventing the
>> calls from being internchanged. Also, it is now correct to add
>> ArgMemOnly to printf as it does not access any other program memory.
>>
>> 3.
>> >For malloc this is still a problem, in the following sense, if we
have:
>> >
>> >  p1 = malloc(really_big);
>> >  ...
>> >  free(p1);
>> >
>> > p2 = malloc(really_big);
>> >  ...
>> > free(p2);
>> >allowing a transformation into:
>> >   p1 = malloc(really_big);
>> >   p2 = malloc(really_big);
>> >    ...
>> >   free(p1); free(p2);
>> >could be problematic.
>>
>> Both free and malloc would be marked with having an internal state.
This
>> should prevent this kind of an optimization. Note that having the
>> ReadNone attribute should not cause problems anymore.
>>
>>
>> Something is not clear to me: is this "internal state” supposed to
be
>> private to the function?
>> How does it deal with malloc/free which can be seen as sharing a state?
>> Especially it is not clear to me how this flag would prevent the last
>> “optimization” you’re illustrating.
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151204/9849c64e/attachment.html>

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at
compilertree.com> wrote:
> 
> >what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call
that private).
> malloc and free could both use global variables that are defined in libc,
but are inaccessible to the program under compilation.

If malloc and free can both use global variables (there is no notion of library
in the compiler), then from what I understand you are actually creating another
global state: i.e. there would be two disjoint global states: the usual default
one and another one that is only accessed by function having this attribute.

— 
Mehdi


> 
> >if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal state, then
malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
> Which is why it would be preferable to call it "inaccessible"
state rather than "internal".
> 
> >It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc
with respect to a free.
> No, it would also prevent interchanging the order of malloc and free, since
they both maintain states (which can be shared, but not accessible to the
program under compilation) and the swapping order could result in a different
final state.
> 
> >At the cost of some redundancy, I think a new attribute is needed.
> @hal. I'm not sure what this implies. Does the semantics of the
attribute in the first mail sound right to you?
> 
> > that'd be redefining the semantics of ReadNone. ReadNone allows
elision of a call if its result is unused,
> @James.  That right. Optimizations should hereafter (if the proposed
attribute is accepted) be more careful in interpreting ReadNone. If the call
also has HasInaccessibleState, it shouldn't remove the call, even if the
call takes no arguments or its return value isn't, because it could be
modifying some internal state.
> 
> 
>   - Vaivaswatha
> 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at
compilertree.com <mailto:vn at compilertree.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> >is this "internal state” supposed to be private to the
function?
>> It could be private or not. Hence the name "inaccessible", to
mean that the program under compilation has no access to the state. So while
printf and malloc (for example) could share state in libc, the program under
compilation cannot access this state.
> 
> This is still not clear to me, you’re saying “it could be private or not”:
what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call that
private).
> 
> Now, from the point of view of the compiler, malloc and free are two
separate functions, if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal state,
then malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
> 
>> >how this flag would prevent the last “optimization” you’re
illustrating
>> Assuming you are referring to the quoted examples, currently these
optimizations are not happening anyway (from what I understand). The issue is
that, after malloc/free are tagged with "ReadNone", such transforms
may happen. Hence to prevent that, the additional flag denoting that these
functions maintain an internal state.
> 
> I’m questioning why would this flag solve that, it does not seem to to me.
It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc with respect
to a free.
> 
> — 
> Mehdi
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>   - Vaivaswatha
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> This email is in continuation to the mail thread
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-December/092996.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-December/092996.html>, to
propose a new function attribute that can convey that a function maintains
state, but this state is inaccessible to the rest of the program under
compilation.
>>> 
>>> Such a flag could be added to most libc/system calls such as
printf/malloc/free. (libc and system calls do access/modify internal variables
such as errno).
>>> 
>>> Example attributes (in addition to what are already set):
>>> malloc/free: HasInaccessibleState, ReadNone
>>> printf: HasInaccessibleState, ArgMemOnly
>>> realloc: HasInaccessibleState, ReadOnly (not sure).
>>> 
>>> The intention behind introducing this attribute is to relax the
conditions in GlobalsAA as below:
>>> (this code is in GlobalsAAResult::AnalyzeCallGraph)
>>>        if (F->isDeclaration()) {
>>>          // Try to get mod/ref behaviour from function attributes.
>>> -        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory()) {
>>> +        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory() ||
F->onlyAccessesArgMemory()) {
>>>            // Can't do better than that!
>>>          } else if (F->onlyReadsMemory()) {
>>>            FunctionEffect |= Ref;
>>>            if (!F->isIntrinsic())
>>>              // This function might call back into the module and
read a global -
>>>              // consider every global as possibly being read by
this function.
>>>              FR.MayReadAnyGlobal = true;
>>>          } else {
>>>            FunctionEffect |= ModRef;
>>>            // Can't say anything useful unless it's an
intrinsic - they don't
>>>            // read or write global variables of the kind considered
here.
>>>            KnowNothing = !F->isIntrinsic();
>>>          }
>>>          continue;
>>>        }
>>> This relaxation allows functions that (transitively) call library
functions (such as printf/malloc) to still maintain and propagate GlobalsAA
info. In general, this adds more precision to the description of these
functions.
>>> 
>>> Concerns regarding impact on other optimizations (I'm repeating
a few examples that Hal mentioned earlier).
>>> 
>>> 1. 
>>> >A readnone function is one whose output is a function only of
its inputs, and if you have this:
>>> >
>>> >  int *x = malloc(4);
>>> >  *x = 2;
>>> >  int *y = malloc(4);
>>> >  *y = 4;
>>> > you certainly don't want EarlyCSE to replace the second
call to malloc with the result of the first (which it will happily do if you
mark malloc as readnone).
>>> 
>>> For malloc, even though ReadNone is set now (as proposed above),
EarlyCSE should be taught to respect the HasInaccessibleState and not combine
functions that maintain internal states. Similarly other optimizations (such as
DCE) must be taught to respect the flag.
>>> 
>>> 2.
>>> >void foo(char * restrict s1, char * restrict s2) {
>>> >  printf(s1);
>>> >  printf(s2);
>>> >}
>>> 
>>> >If printf is argmemonly, then we could interchange the two
printf calls.
>>> 
>>> In this example too, printf maintains an internal state, preventing
the calls from being internchanged. Also, it is now correct to add ArgMemOnly to
printf as it does not access any other program memory.
>>> 
>>> 3.
>>> >For malloc this is still a problem, in the following sense, if
we have:
>>> >
>>> >  p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >  ...
>>> >  free(p1);
>>> >
>>> > p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >  ...
>>> > free(p2);
>>> >allowing a transformation into:
>>> >   p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >   p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >    ...
>>> >   free(p1); free(p2);
>>> >could be problematic.
>>> 
>>> Both free and malloc would be marked with having an internal state.
This should prevent this kind of an optimization. Note that having the ReadNone
attribute should not cause problems anymore.
>> 
>> Something is not clear to me: is this "internal state” supposed to
be private to the function?
>> How does it deal with malloc/free which can be seen as sharing a state?
Especially it is not clear to me how this flag would prevent the last
“optimization” you’re illustrating.
>> 
>> — 
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151204/bda7a6ab/attachment.html>

>there would be two disjoint global states
In some sense yes, but technically not disjoint. Functions marked with this
attribute should still be able to access the globals within the program
under compilation, if its not marked with ReadNone.
>If malloc and free can both use global variables (there is no notion of
library in the compiler)
Inaccessible state here refers to any global that is not visible to the
program under compilation. The key idea (behind the new attribute) is to
convey that these external functions do things inside that the compiler
cannot know about, and hence deal with them conservatively.

  - Vaivaswatha

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at
compilertree.com>
> wrote:
>
> >what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d call
that
> private).
> malloc and free could both use global variables that are defined in libc,
> but are inaccessible to the program under compilation.
>
>
>
> If malloc and free can both use global variables (there is no notion of
> library in the compiler), then from what I understand you are actually
> creating another global state: i.e. there would be two disjoint global
> states: the usual default one and another one that is only accessed by
> function having this attribute.
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
> >if you’re attribute is saying they have some internal state, then
> malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
> Which is why it would be preferable to call it "inaccessible"
state rather
> than "internal".
>
> >It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc
with
> respect to a free.
> No, it would also prevent interchanging the order of malloc and free,
> since they both maintain states (which can be shared, but not accessible to
> the program under compilation) and the swapping order could result in a
> different final state.
>
> >At the cost of some redundancy, I think a new attribute is needed.
> @hal. I'm not sure what this implies. Does the semantics of the
attribute
> in the first mail sound right to you?
>
> > that'd be redefining the semantics of ReadNone. ReadNone allows
elision
> of a call if its result is unused,
> @James.  That right. Optimizations should hereafter (if the proposed
> attribute is accepted) be more careful in interpreting ReadNone. If the
> call also has HasInaccessibleState, it shouldn't remove the call, even
if
> the call takes no arguments or its return value isn't, because it could
be
> modifying some internal state.
>
>
>   - Vaivaswatha
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:58 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj <vn at
compilertree.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >is this "internal state” supposed to be private to the
function?
>> It could be private or not. Hence the name "inaccessible", to
mean that
>> the program under compilation has no access to the state. So while
printf
>> and malloc (for example) could share state in libc, the program under
>> compilation cannot access this state.
>>
>>
>> This is still not clear to me, you’re saying “it could be private or
>> not”: what is a non-public state that no-one but you can access? (I’d
call
>> that private).
>>
>> Now, from the point of view of the compiler, malloc and free are two
>> separate functions, if you’re attribute is saying they have some
internal
>> state, then malloc() cannot access the state of free() and vice versa.
>>
>> >how this flag would prevent the last “optimization” you’re
illustrating
>> Assuming you are referring to the quoted examples, currently these
>> optimizations are not happening anyway (from what I understand). The
issue
>> is that, after malloc/free are tagged with "ReadNone", such
transforms may
>> happen. Hence to prevent that, the additional flag denoting that these
>> functions maintain an internal state.
>>
>>
>> I’m questioning why would this flag solve that, it does not seem to to
>> me. It would prevent to swap two mallocs but not moving freely a malloc
>> with respect to a free.
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   - Vaivaswatha
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This email is in continuation to the mail thread
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-December/092996.html,
to
>>> propose a new function attribute that can convey that a function
maintains
>>> state, but this state is inaccessible to the rest of the program
under
>>> compilation.
>>>
>>> Such a flag could be added to most libc/system calls such as
>>> printf/malloc/free. (libc and system calls do access/modify
internal
>>> variables such as errno).
>>>
>>> Example attributes (in addition to what are already set):
>>> malloc/free: HasInaccessibleState, ReadNone
>>> printf: HasInaccessibleState, ArgMemOnly
>>> realloc: HasInaccessibleState, ReadOnly (not sure).
>>>
>>> The intention behind introducing this attribute is to relax the
>>> conditions in GlobalsAA as below:
>>> (this code is in GlobalsAAResult::AnalyzeCallGraph)
>>>
>>>        if (F->isDeclaration()) {
>>>          // Try to get mod/ref behaviour from function attributes.
>>> -        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory()) {
>>> +        if (F->doesNotAccessMemory() ||
F->onlyAccessesArgMemory()) {
>>>            // Can't do better than that!
>>>          } else if (F->onlyReadsMemory()) {
>>>            FunctionEffect |= Ref;
>>>            if (!F->isIntrinsic())
>>>              // This function might call back into the module and
read a global -
>>>              // consider every global as possibly being read by
this function.
>>>              FR.MayReadAnyGlobal = true;
>>>          } else {
>>>            FunctionEffect |= ModRef;
>>>            // Can't say anything useful unless it's an
intrinsic - they don't
>>>            // read or write global variables of the kind considered
here.
>>>            KnowNothing = !F->isIntrinsic();
>>>          }
>>>          continue;
>>>        }
>>>
>>> This relaxation allows functions that (transitively) call library
>>> functions (such as printf/malloc) to still maintain and propagate
GlobalsAA
>>> info. In general, this adds more precision to the description of
these
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Concerns regarding impact on other optimizations (I'm repeating
a few
>>> examples that Hal mentioned earlier).
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> >A readnone function is one whose output is a function only of
its
>>> inputs, and if you have this:
>>> >
>>> >  int *x = malloc(4);
>>> >  *x = 2;
>>> >  int *y = malloc(4);
>>> >  *y = 4;
>>> > you certainly don't want EarlyCSE to replace the second
call to malloc
>>> with the result of the first (which it will happily do if you mark
malloc
>>> as readnone).
>>>
>>> For malloc, even though ReadNone is set now (as proposed above),
>>> EarlyCSE should be taught to respect the HasInaccessibleState and
not
>>> combine functions that maintain internal states. Similarly other
>>> optimizations (such as DCE) must be taught to respect the flag.
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> >void foo(char * restrict s1, char * restrict s2) {
>>> >  printf(s1);
>>> >  printf(s2);
>>> >}
>>>
>>> >If printf is argmemonly, then we could interchange the two
printf calls.
>>>
>>> In this example too, printf maintains an internal state, preventing
the
>>> calls from being internchanged. Also, it is now correct to add
>>> ArgMemOnly to printf as it does not access any other program
memory.
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> >For malloc this is still a problem, in the following sense, if
we have:
>>> >
>>> >  p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >  ...
>>> >  free(p1);
>>> >
>>> > p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >  ...
>>> > free(p2);
>>> >allowing a transformation into:
>>> >   p1 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >   p2 = malloc(really_big);
>>> >    ...
>>> >   free(p1); free(p2);
>>> >could be problematic.
>>>
>>> Both free and malloc would be marked with having an internal state.
This
>>> should prevent this kind of an optimization. Note that having the
>>> ReadNone attribute should not cause problems anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> Something is not clear to me: is this "internal state”
supposed to be
>>> private to the function?
>>> How does it deal with malloc/free which can be seen as sharing a
state?
>>> Especially it is not clear to me how this flag would prevent the
last
>>> “optimization” you’re illustrating.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Mehdi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151204/6a0a1ceb/attachment-0001.html>