llvm dev - Jul 2016 - [PM] I think that the new PM needs to learn about inter-analysis dependencies...

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <
>>>>> davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Chandler Carruth <
>>>>>> chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yea, this is a nasty problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One important thing to understand is that this is
specific to
>>>>>>> analyses which hold references to other analyses.
While this isn't unheard
>>>>>>> of, it isn't as common as it could be. Still,
definitely something we need
>>>>>>> to address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can call this type of dependencies (holding
references)
>>>>>> hard-dependency. The soft dependency refers to the case
where analysis 'A'
>>>>>> depends on 'B' during computation, but does not
need 'B' once it is
>>>>>> computed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are actually quite a few examples of
hard-dependency case. For
>>>>>> instance LoopAccessInfo, LazyValueInfo etc which hold
references to other
>>>>>> analyses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problem involving hard-dependency is actually easier to
detect, as it
>>>>>> is usually a compile time problem. Issues involving
soft dependencies are
>>>>>> more subtle and can lead to wrong code gen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you mean to say that soft-dependency problems are
easier to
>>>>> detect? At least my intuition is that soft-dependency is
easier because
>>>>> there is no risk of dangling pointers to other analyses.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is that the fact that there is *any* dependency
isn't clear.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think the only real problem here are these
"hard
>>>> dependencies" (I don't really like that term though).
For others, only an
>>>> analysis that is *explicitly* preserved survives. So I'm
not worried about
>>>> the fact that people have to remember this.
>>>>
>>>> The question is how often there are cross-data-structure
references.
>>>> David mentions a few examples, and I'm sure there are more,
but it isn't
>>>> clear to me yet whether this is pervasive or occasional.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I just did a quick run-through of PassRegistry.def and this is what
I
>>> found:
>>>
>>> Module analyses: 0/5 hold pointers to other analyses
>>> CallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>> LazyCallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>> ProfileSummaryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>> VerifierAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>
>>> Module alias analyses: 1/1 keeps pointer to other analysis.
>>> GlobalsAA: Result keeps pointer to TLI (this is a function
analysis).
>>>
>>> Function analyses: 9/17 keep pointers to other analysis
>>> AAManager: Its Result holds TLI pointer and pointers to individual
AA
>>> result objects.
>>> AssumptionAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>> BlockFrequencyAnalysis: Its Result holds pointers to LoopInfo and
BPI.
>>> BranchProbabilityAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
(uses
>>> LoopInfo to "recalculate" though)
>>> DominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
>>> PostDominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
>>> DemandedBitsAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache
>>> and DominatorTree
>>> DominanceFrontierAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
>>> (uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate" though).
>>> LoopInfo: Uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate"
but stores no
>>> pointers.
>>> LazyValueAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache,
>>> TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree.
>>> DependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
ScalarEvolution,
>>> LoopInfo
>>> MemoryDependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
>>> AssumptionCache, TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree
>>> MemorySSAAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis, DominatorTree
>>> RegionInfoAnalysis: Stores pointers to DomTree, PostDomTree,
DomFrontier
>>> ScalarEvolutionAnalysis: Stores pointers to TargetLibraryInfo,
>>> AssumptionCache, DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: Has no dependencies
>>> TargetIRAnalysis: Has no dependencies.
>>>
>>> Function alias analyses: 3/5 keep pointers to other analyses
>>> BasicAA: Keeps pointers to TargetLibraryInfo, AssumptionCache,
>>> DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>> CFLAA: Keeps pointer to TargetLibraryInfo
>>> SCEVAA: Keeps pointer to ScalarEvolution
>>> ScopedNoAliasAA: No dependencies
>>> TypeBasedAA: No dependencies
>>>
>>>
>>> Total: 13/28 analyses (~50%) hold pointers to other analyses.
>>> Of the 15/28 analyses that don't hold pointers, 12/15 simply
have no
>>> dependencies. Only 3/15 (BPI, LoopInfo, DominanceFrontier) have
>>> dependencies that are used just for a "recalculate" step
that retains no
>>> pointers.
>>> So I think it is fair to say that analyses which hold pointers to
other
>>> analyses is not an exceptional case. In fact, analyses that use
other
>>> analyses just for a "recalculate" step seems to be the
exceptional case
>>> (only 3/28 or about 10%)
>>>
>>
>> Interesting!
>>
>> Most of these look like they hold a pointer to the root analysis as
>> opposed to detailed objects *inside* the analysis?
>>
>> It might make sense to try to handle this very specific pattern in a
>> special way of overriding the invalidate routines is too error
prone.... We
>> could try to make this work "automatically" but I'm
worried this would be
>> challenging to get right. Open to suggestions of course.
>>
>> Any other ideas about what would make sense to handle this?
>>
>> Does it make sense to override the invalidate routines now and iterate
>> from there? I feel like you've done a lot of the research necessary
for
>> this already...
>>
>
> I'll keep pushing forward tomorrow with building test-suite
successfully
> using the new PM for the LTO pipeline (I was doing some unrelated LLD stuff
> for most of today). It will be interesting to see how many `invalidate`
> overrides will be needed to avoid these issues for just the LTO pipeline on
> test-suite.
>
I spent the better part of today working on this and will continue
tomorrow; this problem seems nastier than I thought. For some reason the
LTO pipeline (or something about LTO) seems to hit on these issues much
more (I'm talking like 40k lines of ASan error reports from building
test-suite with the LTO pipeline in the new PM; per-TU steps still using
the old PM). Some notes:

- BasicAA's dependence on domtree and loopinfo in the new PM seems to
account for quite a few of the problems.
- BasicAA and other stuff are marked (by overriding `invalidate` to return
false) to never be invalidated because they are "stateless". However
they
still hold pointers and so they do need to be invalidated.
- CallGraph uses AssertingVH (PR28400) and so I needed a workaround similar
to r274656 in various passes.
- D21921 is holding up -- I haven't hit any issues with the core logic of
that patch.
- AAResults holds handles to various AA result objects. This means it
pretty much always needs to be invalidated unless you are sure that none of
the AA's will get invalidated.


The existing `invalidate` method doesn't have the right semantics for even
an error-prone solution :( We are going to need to make some significant
changes to even get basic sanity I think. Perhaps each analysis can expose
a "preserve" static function. E.g. instead of
`PA.preserve<Foo>();` you
have to do `Foo::setPreserved(PA);`.
I'm actually not quite sure that that will even work. Once I have
test-suite fully building successfully with the LTO pipeline in the new PM
I'll be able to give a more confident answer (esp. w.r.t. the manager for
different IRUnitT's).
But at this point I'm not confident running *any* pass pipeline in the new
PM without at least assertions+ASan.

We may want to have a proper design discussion around this problem though.

Also I'd like to have test-suite working (by hook or by crook) with LTO in
the new PM so we can get some numbers on the resident set impact of all
this caching; if it is really problematic then we may need to start talking
front-and-center about different invalidation policies for keeping this in
check instead of leaving it as something that we will be able to patch
later.



The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the real
"hard"
problem that the new PM is exposing us to is having the ability for any
pass to ask for any analysis on any IRUnitT (and any specific IRUnit of
that IRUnitT) and have the result stored somewhere and then invalidated.
This means that "getAnalysisUsage" is not just a list of passes, but
much
more complicated and is essentially a set of arbitrary pairs "(analysis,
IRUnit)" (and the associated potential tangle of dependencies between the
state cached on these tuples). With the old PM, you essentially are looking
at a problem of scheduling the lifetime of analyses of the same IRUnit
intermingled with transformation passes on that same IRUnit, so you only
have the "analysis" part of the tuple above, making things much
simpler
(and handling dependencies is much simpler too). We've obviously outgrown
this model with examples like LAA, AssumptionCacheTracker, etc. that hack
around this in the old PM. We may want to have a fresh re-examination of
what problems we are exactly trying to solve.

For me, my main concern now is what changes need to be made in order to
feel confident running a pipeline in the new PM without assertions+ASan.


Sorry for the long post, just brain-dumping before heading home.

-- Sean Silva



>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160714/9e0cb505/attachment-0001.html>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth
<chandlerc at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis
at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li
<
>>>>>> davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Chandler Carruth
<
>>>>>>> chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yea, this is a nasty problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One important thing to understand is that this
is specific to
>>>>>>>> analyses which hold references to other
analyses. While this isn't unheard
>>>>>>>> of, it isn't as common as it could be.
Still, definitely something we need
>>>>>>>> to address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can call this type of dependencies (holding
references)
>>>>>>> hard-dependency. The soft dependency refers to the
case where analysis 'A'
>>>>>>> depends on 'B' during computation, but does
not need 'B' once it is
>>>>>>> computed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are actually quite a few examples of
hard-dependency case. For
>>>>>>> instance LoopAccessInfo, LazyValueInfo etc which
hold references to other
>>>>>>> analyses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem involving hard-dependency is actually
easier to detect, as
>>>>>>> it is usually a compile time problem. Issues
involving soft dependencies
>>>>>>> are more subtle and can lead to wrong code gen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you mean to say that soft-dependency problems are
easier to
>>>>>> detect? At least my intuition is that soft-dependency
is easier because
>>>>>> there is no risk of dangling pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is that the fact that there is *any* dependency
isn't clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I think the only real problem here are these
"hard
>>>>> dependencies" (I don't really like that term
though). For others, only an
>>>>> analysis that is *explicitly* preserved survives. So
I'm not worried about
>>>>> the fact that people have to remember this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is how often there are cross-data-structure
references.
>>>>> David mentions a few examples, and I'm sure there are
more, but it isn't
>>>>> clear to me yet whether this is pervasive or occasional.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just did a quick run-through of PassRegistry.def and this is
what I
>>>> found:
>>>>
>>>> Module analyses: 0/5 hold pointers to other analyses
>>>> CallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> LazyCallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> ProfileSummaryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> VerifierAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>
>>>> Module alias analyses: 1/1 keeps pointer to other analysis.
>>>> GlobalsAA: Result keeps pointer to TLI (this is a function
analysis).
>>>>
>>>> Function analyses: 9/17 keep pointers to other analysis
>>>> AAManager: Its Result holds TLI pointer and pointers to
individual AA
>>>> result objects.
>>>> AssumptionAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> BlockFrequencyAnalysis: Its Result holds pointers to LoopInfo
and BPI.
>>>> BranchProbabilityAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses. (uses
>>>> LoopInfo to "recalculate" though)
>>>> DominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
>>>> PostDominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>> DemandedBitsAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache
>>>> and DominatorTree
>>>> DominanceFrontierAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>> (uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate"
though).
>>>> LoopInfo: Uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for
"recalculate" but stores no
>>>> pointers.
>>>> LazyValueAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache,
>>>> TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree.
>>>> DependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
ScalarEvolution,
>>>> LoopInfo
>>>> MemoryDependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
>>>> AssumptionCache, TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree
>>>> MemorySSAAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
DominatorTree
>>>> RegionInfoAnalysis: Stores pointers to DomTree, PostDomTree,
DomFrontier
>>>> ScalarEvolutionAnalysis: Stores pointers to TargetLibraryInfo,
>>>> AssumptionCache, DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: Has no dependencies
>>>> TargetIRAnalysis: Has no dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> Function alias analyses: 3/5 keep pointers to other analyses
>>>> BasicAA: Keeps pointers to TargetLibraryInfo, AssumptionCache,
>>>> DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>> CFLAA: Keeps pointer to TargetLibraryInfo
>>>> SCEVAA: Keeps pointer to ScalarEvolution
>>>> ScopedNoAliasAA: No dependencies
>>>> TypeBasedAA: No dependencies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total: 13/28 analyses (~50%) hold pointers to other analyses.
>>>> Of the 15/28 analyses that don't hold pointers, 12/15
simply have no
>>>> dependencies. Only 3/15 (BPI, LoopInfo, DominanceFrontier) have
>>>> dependencies that are used just for a "recalculate"
step that retains no
>>>> pointers.
>>>> So I think it is fair to say that analyses which hold pointers
to other
>>>> analyses is not an exceptional case. In fact, analyses that use
other
>>>> analyses just for a "recalculate" step seems to be
the exceptional case
>>>> (only 3/28 or about 10%)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting!
>>>
>>> Most of these look like they hold a pointer to the root analysis as
>>> opposed to detailed objects *inside* the analysis?
>>>
>>> It might make sense to try to handle this very specific pattern in
a
>>> special way of overriding the invalidate routines is too error
prone.... We
>>> could try to make this work "automatically" but I'm
worried this would be
>>> challenging to get right. Open to suggestions of course.
>>>
>>> Any other ideas about what would make sense to handle this?
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to override the invalidate routines now and
iterate
>>> from there? I feel like you've done a lot of the research
necessary for
>>> this already...
>>>
>>
>> I'll keep pushing forward tomorrow with building test-suite
successfully
>> using the new PM for the LTO pipeline (I was doing some unrelated LLD
stuff
>> for most of today). It will be interesting to see how many `invalidate`
>> overrides will be needed to avoid these issues for just the LTO
pipeline on
>> test-suite.
>>
>
> I spent the better part of today working on this and will continue
> tomorrow; this problem seems nastier than I thought. For some reason the
> LTO pipeline (or something about LTO) seems to hit on these issues much
> more (I'm talking like 40k lines of ASan error reports from building
> test-suite with the LTO pipeline in the new PM; per-TU steps still using
> the old PM). Some notes:
>
> - BasicAA's dependence on domtree and loopinfo in the new PM seems to
> account for quite a few of the problems.
> - BasicAA and other stuff are marked (by overriding `invalidate` to return
> false) to never be invalidated because they are "stateless".
However they
> still hold pointers and so they do need to be invalidated.
> - CallGraph uses AssertingVH (PR28400) and so I needed a workaround
> similar to r274656 in various passes.
> - D21921 is holding up -- I haven't hit any issues with the core logic
of
> that patch.
> - AAResults holds handles to various AA result objects. This means it
> pretty much always needs to be invalidated unless you are sure that none of
> the AA's will get invalidated.
>
>
> The existing `invalidate` method doesn't have the right semantics for
even
> an error-prone solution :( We are going to need to make some significant
> changes to even get basic sanity I think. Perhaps each analysis can expose
> a "preserve" static function. E.g. instead of
`PA.preserve<Foo>();` you
> have to do `Foo::setPreserved(PA);`.
> I'm actually not quite sure that that will even work. Once I have
> test-suite fully building successfully with the LTO pipeline in the new PM
> I'll be able to give a more confident answer (esp. w.r.t. the manager
for
> different IRUnitT's).
> But at this point I'm not confident running *any* pass pipeline in the
new
> PM without at least assertions+ASan.
>
> We may want to have a proper design discussion around this problem though.
>
> Also I'd like to have test-suite working (by hook or by crook) with LTO
in
> the new PM so we can get some numbers on the resident set impact of all
> this caching; if it is really problematic then we may need to start talking
> front-and-center about different invalidation policies for keeping this in
> check instead of leaving it as something that we will be able to patch
> later.
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the real
"hard"
> problem that the new PM is exposing us to is having the ability for any
> pass to ask for any analysis on any IRUnitT (and any specific IRUnit of
> that IRUnitT) and have the result stored somewhere and then invalidated.
> This means that "getAnalysisUsage" is not just a list of passes,
but much
> more complicated and is essentially a set of arbitrary pairs
"(analysis,
> IRUnit)" (and the associated potential tangle of dependencies between
the
> state cached on these tuples). With the old PM, you essentially are looking
> at a problem of scheduling the lifetime of analyses of the same IRUnit
> intermingled with transformation passes on that same IRUnit, so you only
> have the "analysis" part of the tuple above, making things much
simpler
> (and handling dependencies is much simpler too).
>
To clarify, it seems like the current new PM is essentially trying to solve
the problem of maintaining/updating a mapping:
(Analysis, IRUnit) -> AnalysisResult
where the AnalysisResult's can have an arbitrary dependency on an arbitrary
set of other AnalysisResult's currently maintained in this mapping. In
order to invalidate any AnalysisResult you need to invalidate all
AnalysisResult's that transitively depend on it. Therefore the right-hand
side of this mapping needs to be something like `(AnalysisResult,
SetOfDependents)`.
So the mapping is really `(Analysis, IRUnit) -> (AnalysisResult,
SetOfDependents)`
Also, this mapping can be updated at any point during the execution of a
transformation pass (and various other places) and must stay correct as the
IR is changed (more on this below).
For example, you might have something like:
(DominatorTreeAnalysis, function @foo) -> (DominatorTree for @foo,
[(DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo)])
(AssumptionAnalysis, function @foo) -> (AssumptionCache for @foo,
[(DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo)])
(DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo) -> (DemandedBits for @foo, [])
(AssumptionAnalysis, function @bar) -> (AssumptionCache for @bar,
[(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)])
(AssumptionAnalysis, function @baz) -> (AssumptionCache for @baz,
[(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)])
(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule) -> (SomeModuleAnalysisResult for
TheModule, [(SomeFunctionAnalysis, function @baz)])
(SomeFunctionAnalysis, function @baz) -> (SomeFunctionAnalysisResult for
@baz, [])

So for example, when a transformation pass invalidates
`(AssumptionAnalysis, function @bar)`, we need to walk
`(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)` and `(SomeFunctionAnalysis,
function @baz)` to invalidate them.


Compare this with the old PM (although like I said we have outgrown this
model). Essentially you take the previous mapping, and require IRUnit to be
a constant at any given point in time. Hence the mapping is essentially
Analysis -> AnalysisResult
Since this is 1:1 there is no real distinction between the Analysis and the
AnalysisResult (and as part of transitioning to the new PM this has had to
be untangled).
This also makes the dependencies simpler since you just have a set of "what
analyses have been run at this point". You just need to run the analyses
individually and make sure they are in the right order. Also, getAnalysis
just takes the Analysis to get the AnalysisResult which makes it simpler --
you just query which analyses are live.


Also, the mapping `(Analysis, IRUnit) -> (AnalysisResult, SetOfDependents)`
that the new PM is essentially trying to keep is even more complicated
because for e.g. Loop and CGSCC passes the IRUnit itself is an object
created by an analysis and subject to invalidation of that analysis as the
IR changes underneath it.

And then there is the question of at what points must this mapping be valid
(i.e. no stale analysis results, no dangling pointers, etc.) and when the
transitive invalidation walking happens. Evidently while a transformation
pass is running, things might temporarily be stale; what are the
"checkpoints" where the mapping is guaranteed to be valid? At the
start of
each transformation pass? At least Chandler's D21464 does not stick to this
because the IRUnit's (SCC's) are only updated at the end of running
potentially many function transformation passes. I.e. all but the first
function transformation pass might observe stale IRUnit's (SCC's).

One other thing to note is that soft-dependencies (using David's
terminology) don't require this kind of dependency tracking. An analysis
result can be cached even though its soft-dependencies are not cached. And
invalidation of soft-dependencies does not require invalidating the
soft-dependents. Actually, this makes it the terminology "soft" and
"hard'
quite natural; "hard" requires an edge to track the dependency for
invalidation purposes, "soft" does not.

This is all quite general. Perhaps too much. We clearly need to go beyond
the old PM's model, but we may not need to go to the fully general case. Is
there a good middle-ground that meets our needs? What restrictions would we
be willing to live with in order to make it easier? The first one on my
list is to not have the IRUnit's themselves depend on analyses. Like
Chandler mentioned on D21921 this has the effect of e.g. preventing caching
across the intervening module pass in a case like
`module(cgscc(require<foo-cgscc-analysis>),some-module-pass-that-makes-no-changes,cgscc(some-cgscc-pass-that-uses-foo-cgscc-analysis))`
but that seems like a restriction we can live with.


Again, sorry for the braindump.


-- Sean Silva

> We've obviously outgrown this model with examples like LAA,
> AssumptionCacheTracker, etc. that hack around this in the old PM. We may
> want to have a fresh re-examination of what problems we are exactly trying
> to solve.
>
> For me, my main concern now is what changes need to be made in order to
> feel confident running a pipeline in the new PM without assertions+ASan.
>
>
> Sorry for the long post, just brain-dumping before heading home.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160714/79ff4bd2/attachment.html>

Hi Sean, 

Thanks for writing all of this up. I'll go back to my previous position: we
need a general dependency graph built as the analysis cache is used. It should
have the following properties:

1. When we call getResult or getCachedResult on an analysis manager, we record a
dependency of the current pass on the returned result.
2. This dependency needs to be stored such that it can be used to invalidate the
current result when the returned result is invalidates and so that the
dependency can be deleted when the current result is invalidated.

As I understand the problem, this is a fully-general solution. I see no reason
not to have a fully-general solution.

Thanks again, 
Hal 

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com>
> To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>,
"llvm-dev"
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide Italiano"
> <dccitaliano at gmail.com>, "Tim Amini Golling"
> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>, "Sanjoy
> Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "Pete
Cooper"
> <peter_cooper at apple.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [PM] I think that the new PM needs to learn about
> inter-analysis dependencies...
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sean Silva < chisophugis at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva < chisophugis at
gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <
> > > chandlerc at gmail.com > wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <
> > > > chisophugis at gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <
> > > > > chandlerc at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <
> > > > > > chisophugis at gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang
David Li <
> > > > > > > davidxl at google.com > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM,
Chandler Carruth <
> > > > > > > > chandlerc at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > Yea, this is a nasty problem.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > > One important thing to understand
is that this is
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > analyses which hold references to
other analyses.
> > > > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > unheard of, it isn't as common
as it could be. Still,
> > > > > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > > something we need to address.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > We can call this type of dependencies
(holding
> > > > > > > > references)
> > > > > > > > hard-dependency. The soft dependency
refers to the case
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > analysis 'A' depends on
'B' during computation, but
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > 'B' once it is computed.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > There are actually quite a few examples
of
> > > > > > > > hard-dependency
> > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > instance LoopAccessInfo, LazyValueInfo
etc which hold
> > > > > > > > references
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > other analyses.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > > Problem involving hard-dependency is
actually easier to
> > > > > > > > detect,
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is usually a compile time problem.
Issues involving
> > > > > > > > soft
> > > > > > > > dependencies are more subtle and can
lead to wrong code
> > > > > > > > gen.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Did you mean to say that soft-dependency
problems are
> > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > detect? At least my intuition is that
soft-dependency is
> > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > because there is no risk of dangling pointers
to other
> > > > > > > analyses.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > The issue is that the fact that there is *any*
dependency
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > clear.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > However, I think the only real problem here are
these "hard
> > > > > > dependencies" (I don't really like that
term though). For
> > > > > > others,
> > > > > > only an analysis that is *explicitly* preserved
survives.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > worried about the fact that people have to
remember this.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > The question is how often there are
cross-data-structure
> > > > > > references.
> > > > > > David mentions a few examples, and I'm sure
there are more,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > isn't clear to me yet whether this is
pervasive or
> > > > > > occasional.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > I just did a quick run-through of PassRegistry.def and
this
> > > > > is
> > > > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > found:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Module analyses: 0/5 hold pointers to other analyses
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > CallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > LazyCallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > ProfileSummaryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > TargetLibraryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > VerifierAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Module alias analyses: 1/1 keeps pointer to other
analysis.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > GlobalsAA: Result keeps pointer to TLI (this is a
function
> > > > > analysis).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Function analyses: 9/17 keep pointers to other analysis
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > AAManager: Its Result holds TLI pointer and pointers to
> > > > > individual
> > > > > AA
> > > > > result objects.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > AssumptionAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > BlockFrequencyAnalysis: Its Result holds pointers to
LoopInfo
> > > > > and
> > > > > BPI.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > BranchProbabilityAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
> > > > > analyses.
> > > > > (uses LoopInfo to "recalculate" though)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > DominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > PostDominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
> > > > > analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > DemandedBitsAnalysis: Stores pointers to
AssumptionCache and
> > > > > DominatorTree
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > DominanceFrontierAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
> > > > > analyses.
> > > > > (uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate"
though).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > LoopInfo: Uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for
"recalculate" but
> > > > > stores
> > > > > no
> > > > > pointers.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > LazyValueAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache,
> > > > > TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > DependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
> > > > > ScalarEvolution, LoopInfo
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > MemoryDependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to
AliasAnalysis,
> > > > > AssumptionCache, TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > MemorySSAAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
> > > > > DominatorTree
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > RegionInfoAnalysis: Stores pointers to DomTree,
PostDomTree,
> > > > > DomFrontier
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > ScalarEvolutionAnalysis: Stores pointers to
> > > > > TargetLibraryInfo,
> > > > > AssumptionCache, DominatorTree, LoopInfo
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > TargetLibraryAnalysis: Has no dependencies
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > TargetIRAnalysis: Has no dependencies.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Function alias analyses: 3/5 keep pointers to other
analyses
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > BasicAA: Keeps pointers to TargetLibraryInfo,
> > > > > AssumptionCache,
> > > > > DominatorTree, LoopInfo
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > CFLAA: Keeps pointer to TargetLibraryInfo
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > SCEVAA: Keeps pointer to ScalarEvolution
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > ScopedNoAliasAA: No dependencies
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > TypeBasedAA: No dependencies
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Total: 13/28 analyses (~50%) hold pointers to other
analyses.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Of the 15/28 analyses that don't hold pointers,
12/15 simply
> > > > > have
> > > > > no
> > > > > dependencies. Only 3/15 (BPI, LoopInfo,
DominanceFrontier)
> > > > > have
> > > > > dependencies that are used just for a
"recalculate" step that
> > > > > retains no pointers.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > So I think it is fair to say that analyses which hold
> > > > > pointers
> > > > > to
> > > > > other analyses is not an exceptional case. In fact,
analyses
> > > > > that
> > > > > use other analyses just for a "recalculate"
step seems to be
> > > > > the
> > > > > exceptional case (only 3/28 or about 10%)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Interesting!
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Most of these look like they hold a pointer to the root
> > > > analysis
> > > > as
> > > > opposed to detailed objects *inside* the analysis?
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > It might make sense to try to handle this very specific
pattern
> > > > in
> > > > a
> > > > special way of overriding the invalidate routines is too
error
> > > > prone.... We could try to make this work
"automatically" but
> > > > I'm
> > > > worried this would be challenging to get right. Open to
> > > > suggestions
> > > > of course.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Any other ideas about what would make sense to handle this?
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Does it make sense to override the invalidate routines now
and
> > > > iterate from there? I feel like you've done a lot of the
> > > > research
> > > > necessary for this already...
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > I'll keep pushing forward tomorrow with building test-suite
> > > successfully using the new PM for the LTO pipeline (I was doing
> > > some
> > > unrelated LLD stuff for most of today). It will be interesting to
> > > see how many `invalidate` overrides will be needed to avoid these
> > > issues for just the LTO pipeline on test-suite.
> > 
> 
> > I spent the better part of today working on this and will continue
> > tomorrow; this problem seems nastier than I thought. For some
> > reason
> > the LTO pipeline (or something about LTO) seems to hit on these
> > issues much more (I'm talking like 40k lines of ASan error reports
> > from building test-suite with the LTO pipeline in the new PM;
> > per-TU
> > steps still using the old PM). Some notes:
> 
> > - BasicAA's dependence on domtree and loopinfo in the new PM seems
> > to
> > account for quite a few of the problems.
> 
> > - BasicAA and other stuff are marked (by overriding `invalidate` to
> > return false) to never be invalidated because they are
"stateless".
> > However they still hold pointers and so they do need to be
> > invalidated.
> 
> > - CallGraph uses AssertingVH (PR28400) and so I needed a workaround
> > similar to r274656 in various passes.
> 
> > - D21921 is holding up -- I haven't hit any issues with the core
> > logic of that patch.
> 
> > - AAResults holds handles to various AA result objects. This means
> > it
> > pretty much always needs to be invalidated unless you are sure that
> > none of the AA's will get invalidated.
> 
> > The existing `invalidate` method doesn't have the right semantics
> > for
> > even an error-prone solution :( We are going to need to make some
> > significant changes to even get basic sanity I think. Perhaps each
> > analysis can expose a "preserve" static function. E.g.
instead of
> > `PA.preserve<Foo>();` you have to do `Foo::setPreserved(PA);`.
> 
> > I'm actually not quite sure that that will even work. Once I have
> > test-suite fully building successfully with the LTO pipeline in the
> > new PM I'll be able to give a more confident answer (esp. w.r.t.
> > the
> > manager for different IRUnitT's).
> 
> > But at this point I'm not confident running *any* pass pipeline in
> > the new PM without at least assertions+ASan.
> 
> > We may want to have a proper design discussion around this problem
> > though.
> 
> > Also I'd like to have test-suite working (by hook or by crook)
with
> > LTO in the new PM so we can get some numbers on the resident set
> > impact of all this caching; if it is really problematic then we may
> > need to start talking front-and-center about different invalidation
> > policies for keeping this in check instead of leaving it as
> > something that we will be able to patch later.
> 
> > The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the real
> > "hard" problem that the new PM is exposing us to is having
the
> > ability for any pass to ask for any analysis on any IRUnitT (and
> > any
> > specific IRUnit of that IRUnitT) and have the result stored
> > somewhere and then invalidated. This means that
"getAnalysisUsage"
> > is not just a list of passes, but much more complicated and is
> > essentially a set of arbitrary pairs "(analysis, IRUnit)"
(and the
> > associated potential tangle of dependencies between the state
> > cached
> > on these tuples). With the old PM, you essentially are looking at a
> > problem of scheduling the lifetime of analyses of the same IRUnit
> > intermingled with transformation passes on that same IRUnit, so you
> > only have the "analysis" part of the tuple above, making
things
> > much
> > simpler (and handling dependencies is much simpler too).
> 
> To clarify, it seems like the current new PM is essentially trying to
> solve the problem of maintaining/updating a mapping:
> (Analysis, IRUnit) -> AnalysisResult
> where the AnalysisResult's can have an arbitrary dependency on an
> arbitrary set of other AnalysisResult's currently maintained in this
> mapping. In order to invalidate any AnalysisResult you need to
> invalidate all AnalysisResult's that transitively depend on it.
> Therefore the right-hand side of this mapping needs to be something
> like `(AnalysisResult, SetOfDependents)`.
> So the mapping is really `(Analysis, IRUnit) -> (AnalysisResult,
> SetOfDependents)`
> Also, this mapping can be updated at any point during the execution
> of a transformation pass (and various other places) and must stay
> correct as the IR is changed (more on this below).
> For example, you might have something like:
> (DominatorTreeAnalysis, function @foo) -> (DominatorTree for @foo,
> [(DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo)])
> (AssumptionAnalysis, function @foo) -> (AssumptionCache for @foo,
> [(DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo)])
> (DemandedBitsAnalysis, function @foo) -> (DemandedBits for @foo, [])
> (AssumptionAnalysis, function @bar) -> (AssumptionCache for @bar,
> [(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)])
> (AssumptionAnalysis, function @baz) -> (AssumptionCache for @baz,
> [(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)])
> (SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule) -> (SomeModuleAnalysisResult
> for TheModule, [(SomeFunctionAnalysis, function @baz)])
> (SomeFunctionAnalysis, function @baz) -> (SomeFunctionAnalysisResult
> for @baz, [])
> So for example, when a transformation pass invalidates
> `(AssumptionAnalysis, function @bar)`, we need to walk
> `(SomeModuleAnalysis, module TheModule)` and `(SomeFunctionAnalysis,
> function @baz)` to invalidate them.
> Compare this with the old PM (although like I said we have outgrown
> this model). Essentially you take the previous mapping, and require
> IRUnit to be a constant at any given point in time. Hence the
> mapping is essentially
> Analysis -> AnalysisResult
> Since this is 1:1 there is no real distinction between the Analysis
> and the AnalysisResult (and as part of transitioning to the new PM
> this has had to be untangled).
> This also makes the dependencies simpler since you just have a set of
> "what analyses have been run at this point". You just need to run
> the analyses individually and make sure they are in the right order.
> Also, getAnalysis just takes the Analysis to get the AnalysisResult
> which makes it simpler -- you just query which analyses are live.
> Also, the mapping `(Analysis, IRUnit) -> (AnalysisResult,
> SetOfDependents)` that the new PM is essentially trying to keep is
> even more complicated because for e.g. Loop and CGSCC passes the
> IRUnit itself is an object created by an analysis and subject to
> invalidation of that analysis as the IR changes underneath it.
> And then there is the question of at what points must this mapping be
> valid (i.e. no stale analysis results, no dangling pointers, etc.)
> and when the transitive invalidation walking happens. Evidently
> while a transformation pass is running, things might temporarily be
> stale; what are the "checkpoints" where the mapping is guaranteed
to
> be valid? At the start of each transformation pass? At least
> Chandler's D21464 does not stick to this because the IRUnit's
> (SCC's) are only updated at the end of running potentially many
> function transformation passes. I.e. all but the first function
> transformation pass might observe stale IRUnit's (SCC's).
> One other thing to note is that soft-dependencies (using David's
> terminology) don't require this kind of dependency tracking. An
> analysis result can be cached even though its soft-dependencies are
> not cached. And invalidation of soft-dependencies does not require
> invalidating the soft-dependents. Actually, this makes it the
> terminology "soft" and "hard' quite natural;
"hard" requires an edge
> to track the dependency for invalidation purposes, "soft" does
not.
> This is all quite general. Perhaps too much. We clearly need to go
> beyond the old PM's model, but we may not need to go to the fully
> general case. Is there a good middle-ground that meets our needs?
> What restrictions would we be willing to live with in order to make
> it easier? The first one on my list is to not have the IRUnit's
> themselves depend on analyses. Like Chandler mentioned on D21921
> this has the effect of e.g. preventing caching across the
> intervening module pass in a case like
>
`module(cgscc(require<foo-cgscc-analysis>),some-module-pass-that-makes-no-changes,cgscc(some-cgscc-pass-that-uses-foo-cgscc-analysis))`
> but that seems like a restriction we can live with.
> Again, sorry for the braindump.
> -- Sean Silva
> > We've obviously outgrown this model with examples like LAA,
> > AssumptionCacheTracker, etc. that hack around this in the old PM.
> > We
> > may want to have a fresh re-examination of what problems we are
> > exactly trying to solve.
> 
> > For me, my main concern now is what changes need to be made in
> > order
> > to feel confident running a pipeline in the new PM without
> > assertions+ASan.
> 
> > Sorry for the long post, just brain-dumping before heading home.
> 
> > -- Sean Silva
> 
> > > -- Sean Silva
> > 
> 
-- 

Hal Finkel 
Assistant Computational Scientist 
Leadership Computing Facility 
Argonne National Laboratory 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160714/37e8dd7f/attachment-0001.html>

It looks like there is really no sane fix within the current
infrastructure. I've had to essentially trigger invalidation (except in the
PreservedAnalyses::all() case) in the function pass manager and function to
loop adapters.

So we basically need to get the analysis manager dependency tracking fixed.

Davide and I will get measurements on the resident set impact of all this
caching (even with the overconservative invalidation for now) to see the
impact. If there is a big rss impact then we probably want to consider that
problem at the same time as the rewrite of the analysis manager.

-- Sean Silva

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth
<chandlerc at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis
at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li
<
>>>>>> davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Chandler Carruth
<
>>>>>>> chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yea, this is a nasty problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One important thing to understand is that this
is specific to
>>>>>>>> analyses which hold references to other
analyses. While this isn't unheard
>>>>>>>> of, it isn't as common as it could be.
Still, definitely something we need
>>>>>>>> to address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can call this type of dependencies (holding
references)
>>>>>>> hard-dependency. The soft dependency refers to the
case where analysis 'A'
>>>>>>> depends on 'B' during computation, but does
not need 'B' once it is
>>>>>>> computed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are actually quite a few examples of
hard-dependency case. For
>>>>>>> instance LoopAccessInfo, LazyValueInfo etc which
hold references to other
>>>>>>> analyses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem involving hard-dependency is actually
easier to detect, as
>>>>>>> it is usually a compile time problem. Issues
involving soft dependencies
>>>>>>> are more subtle and can lead to wrong code gen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you mean to say that soft-dependency problems are
easier to
>>>>>> detect? At least my intuition is that soft-dependency
is easier because
>>>>>> there is no risk of dangling pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is that the fact that there is *any* dependency
isn't clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I think the only real problem here are these
"hard
>>>>> dependencies" (I don't really like that term
though). For others, only an
>>>>> analysis that is *explicitly* preserved survives. So
I'm not worried about
>>>>> the fact that people have to remember this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is how often there are cross-data-structure
references.
>>>>> David mentions a few examples, and I'm sure there are
more, but it isn't
>>>>> clear to me yet whether this is pervasive or occasional.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just did a quick run-through of PassRegistry.def and this is
what I
>>>> found:
>>>>
>>>> Module analyses: 0/5 hold pointers to other analyses
>>>> CallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> LazyCallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> ProfileSummaryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> VerifierAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>
>>>> Module alias analyses: 1/1 keeps pointer to other analysis.
>>>> GlobalsAA: Result keeps pointer to TLI (this is a function
analysis).
>>>>
>>>> Function analyses: 9/17 keep pointers to other analysis
>>>> AAManager: Its Result holds TLI pointer and pointers to
individual AA
>>>> result objects.
>>>> AssumptionAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>> BlockFrequencyAnalysis: Its Result holds pointers to LoopInfo
and BPI.
>>>> BranchProbabilityAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses. (uses
>>>> LoopInfo to "recalculate" though)
>>>> DominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other analyses.
>>>> PostDominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>> DemandedBitsAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache
>>>> and DominatorTree
>>>> DominanceFrontierAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>> (uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate"
though).
>>>> LoopInfo: Uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for
"recalculate" but stores no
>>>> pointers.
>>>> LazyValueAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache,
>>>> TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree.
>>>> DependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
ScalarEvolution,
>>>> LoopInfo
>>>> MemoryDependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
>>>> AssumptionCache, TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree
>>>> MemorySSAAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
DominatorTree
>>>> RegionInfoAnalysis: Stores pointers to DomTree, PostDomTree,
DomFrontier
>>>> ScalarEvolutionAnalysis: Stores pointers to TargetLibraryInfo,
>>>> AssumptionCache, DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: Has no dependencies
>>>> TargetIRAnalysis: Has no dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> Function alias analyses: 3/5 keep pointers to other analyses
>>>> BasicAA: Keeps pointers to TargetLibraryInfo, AssumptionCache,
>>>> DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>> CFLAA: Keeps pointer to TargetLibraryInfo
>>>> SCEVAA: Keeps pointer to ScalarEvolution
>>>> ScopedNoAliasAA: No dependencies
>>>> TypeBasedAA: No dependencies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Total: 13/28 analyses (~50%) hold pointers to other analyses.
>>>> Of the 15/28 analyses that don't hold pointers, 12/15
simply have no
>>>> dependencies. Only 3/15 (BPI, LoopInfo, DominanceFrontier) have
>>>> dependencies that are used just for a "recalculate"
step that retains no
>>>> pointers.
>>>> So I think it is fair to say that analyses which hold pointers
to other
>>>> analyses is not an exceptional case. In fact, analyses that use
other
>>>> analyses just for a "recalculate" step seems to be
the exceptional case
>>>> (only 3/28 or about 10%)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting!
>>>
>>> Most of these look like they hold a pointer to the root analysis as
>>> opposed to detailed objects *inside* the analysis?
>>>
>>> It might make sense to try to handle this very specific pattern in
a
>>> special way of overriding the invalidate routines is too error
prone.... We
>>> could try to make this work "automatically" but I'm
worried this would be
>>> challenging to get right. Open to suggestions of course.
>>>
>>> Any other ideas about what would make sense to handle this?
>>>
>>> Does it make sense to override the invalidate routines now and
iterate
>>> from there? I feel like you've done a lot of the research
necessary for
>>> this already...
>>>
>>
>> I'll keep pushing forward tomorrow with building test-suite
successfully
>> using the new PM for the LTO pipeline (I was doing some unrelated LLD
stuff
>> for most of today). It will be interesting to see how many `invalidate`
>> overrides will be needed to avoid these issues for just the LTO
pipeline on
>> test-suite.
>>
>
> I spent the better part of today working on this and will continue
> tomorrow; this problem seems nastier than I thought. For some reason the
> LTO pipeline (or something about LTO) seems to hit on these issues much
> more (I'm talking like 40k lines of ASan error reports from building
> test-suite with the LTO pipeline in the new PM; per-TU steps still using
> the old PM). Some notes:
>
> - BasicAA's dependence on domtree and loopinfo in the new PM seems to
> account for quite a few of the problems.
> - BasicAA and other stuff are marked (by overriding `invalidate` to return
> false) to never be invalidated because they are "stateless".
However they
> still hold pointers and so they do need to be invalidated.
> - CallGraph uses AssertingVH (PR28400) and so I needed a workaround
> similar to r274656 in various passes.
> - D21921 is holding up -- I haven't hit any issues with the core logic
of
> that patch.
> - AAResults holds handles to various AA result objects. This means it
> pretty much always needs to be invalidated unless you are sure that none of
> the AA's will get invalidated.
>
>
> The existing `invalidate` method doesn't have the right semantics for
even
> an error-prone solution :( We are going to need to make some significant
> changes to even get basic sanity I think. Perhaps each analysis can expose
> a "preserve" static function. E.g. instead of
`PA.preserve<Foo>();` you
> have to do `Foo::setPreserved(PA);`.
> I'm actually not quite sure that that will even work. Once I have
> test-suite fully building successfully with the LTO pipeline in the new PM
> I'll be able to give a more confident answer (esp. w.r.t. the manager
for
> different IRUnitT's).
> But at this point I'm not confident running *any* pass pipeline in the
new
> PM without at least assertions+ASan.
>
> We may want to have a proper design discussion around this problem though.
>
> Also I'd like to have test-suite working (by hook or by crook) with LTO
in
> the new PM so we can get some numbers on the resident set impact of all
> this caching; if it is really problematic then we may need to start talking
> front-and-center about different invalidation policies for keeping this in
> check instead of leaving it as something that we will be able to patch
> later.
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the real
"hard"
> problem that the new PM is exposing us to is having the ability for any
> pass to ask for any analysis on any IRUnitT (and any specific IRUnit of
> that IRUnitT) and have the result stored somewhere and then invalidated.
> This means that "getAnalysisUsage" is not just a list of passes,
but much
> more complicated and is essentially a set of arbitrary pairs
"(analysis,
> IRUnit)" (and the associated potential tangle of dependencies between
the
> state cached on these tuples). With the old PM, you essentially are looking
> at a problem of scheduling the lifetime of analyses of the same IRUnit
> intermingled with transformation passes on that same IRUnit, so you only
> have the "analysis" part of the tuple above, making things much
simpler
> (and handling dependencies is much simpler too). We've obviously
outgrown
> this model with examples like LAA, AssumptionCacheTracker, etc. that hack
> around this in the old PM. We may want to have a fresh re-examination of
> what problems we are exactly trying to solve.
>
> For me, my main concern now is what changes need to be made in order to
> feel confident running a pipeline in the new PM without assertions+ASan.
>
>
> Sorry for the long post, just brain-dumping before heading home.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160715/f4b288d5/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
> It looks like there is really no sane fix within the current
> infrastructure. I've had to essentially trigger invalidation (except in
the
> PreservedAnalyses::all() case) in the function pass manager and function to
> loop adapters.
>
invalidation of *everything* I mean.

-- Sean Silva

>
> So we basically need to get the analysis manager dependency tracking fixed.
>
> Davide and I will get measurements on the resident set impact of all this
> caching (even with the overconservative invalidation for now) to see the
> impact. If there is a big rss impact then we probably want to consider that
> problem at the same time as the rewrite of the analysis manager.
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <
>>>>> chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva
<chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li
<
>>>>>>> davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Chandler
Carruth <
>>>>>>>> chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yea, this is a nasty problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One important thing to understand is that
this is specific to
>>>>>>>>> analyses which hold references to other
analyses. While this isn't unheard
>>>>>>>>> of, it isn't as common as it could be.
Still, definitely something we need
>>>>>>>>> to address.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can call this type of dependencies (holding
references)
>>>>>>>> hard-dependency. The soft dependency refers to
the case where analysis 'A'
>>>>>>>> depends on 'B' during computation, but
does not need 'B' once it is
>>>>>>>> computed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are actually quite a few examples of
hard-dependency case.
>>>>>>>> For instance LoopAccessInfo, LazyValueInfo etc
which hold references to
>>>>>>>> other analyses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem involving hard-dependency is actually
easier to detect, as
>>>>>>>> it is usually a compile time problem. Issues
involving soft dependencies
>>>>>>>> are more subtle and can lead to wrong code gen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you mean to say that soft-dependency problems
are easier to
>>>>>>> detect? At least my intuition is that
soft-dependency is easier because
>>>>>>> there is no risk of dangling pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is that the fact that there is *any*
dependency isn't clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I think the only real problem here are these
"hard
>>>>>> dependencies" (I don't really like that term
though). For others, only an
>>>>>> analysis that is *explicitly* preserved survives. So
I'm not worried about
>>>>>> the fact that people have to remember this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is how often there are
cross-data-structure references.
>>>>>> David mentions a few examples, and I'm sure there
are more, but it isn't
>>>>>> clear to me yet whether this is pervasive or
occasional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just did a quick run-through of PassRegistry.def and this
is what I
>>>>> found:
>>>>>
>>>>> Module analyses: 0/5 hold pointers to other analyses
>>>>> CallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>> LazyCallGraph: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>> ProfileSummaryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>> VerifierAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Module alias analyses: 1/1 keeps pointer to other analysis.
>>>>> GlobalsAA: Result keeps pointer to TLI (this is a function
analysis).
>>>>>
>>>>> Function analyses: 9/17 keep pointers to other analysis
>>>>> AAManager: Its Result holds TLI pointer and pointers to
individual AA
>>>>> result objects.
>>>>> AssumptionAnalysis: No pointers to other analyses.
>>>>> BlockFrequencyAnalysis: Its Result holds pointers to
LoopInfo and BPI.
>>>>> BranchProbabilityAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses. (uses
>>>>> LoopInfo to "recalculate" though)
>>>>> DominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>> PostDominatorTreeAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>> DemandedBitsAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache
>>>>> and DominatorTree
>>>>> DominanceFrontierAnalysis: Stores no pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>> (uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for "recalculate"
though).
>>>>> LoopInfo: Uses DominatorTreeAnalysis for
"recalculate" but stores no
>>>>> pointers.
>>>>> LazyValueAnalysis: Stores pointers to AssumptionCache,
>>>>> TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree.
>>>>> DependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
ScalarEvolution,
>>>>> LoopInfo
>>>>> MemoryDependenceAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
>>>>> AssumptionCache, TargetLibraryInfo, DominatorTree
>>>>> MemorySSAAnalysis: Stores pointers to AliasAnalysis,
DominatorTree
>>>>> RegionInfoAnalysis: Stores pointers to DomTree,
PostDomTree,
>>>>> DomFrontier
>>>>> ScalarEvolutionAnalysis: Stores pointers to
TargetLibraryInfo,
>>>>> AssumptionCache, DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>>> TargetLibraryAnalysis: Has no dependencies
>>>>> TargetIRAnalysis: Has no dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Function alias analyses: 3/5 keep pointers to other
analyses
>>>>> BasicAA: Keeps pointers to TargetLibraryInfo,
AssumptionCache,
>>>>> DominatorTree, LoopInfo
>>>>> CFLAA: Keeps pointer to TargetLibraryInfo
>>>>> SCEVAA: Keeps pointer to ScalarEvolution
>>>>> ScopedNoAliasAA: No dependencies
>>>>> TypeBasedAA: No dependencies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Total: 13/28 analyses (~50%) hold pointers to other
analyses.
>>>>> Of the 15/28 analyses that don't hold pointers, 12/15
simply have no
>>>>> dependencies. Only 3/15 (BPI, LoopInfo, DominanceFrontier)
have
>>>>> dependencies that are used just for a
"recalculate" step that retains no
>>>>> pointers.
>>>>> So I think it is fair to say that analyses which hold
pointers to
>>>>> other analyses is not an exceptional case. In fact,
analyses that use other
>>>>> analyses just for a "recalculate" step seems to
be the exceptional case
>>>>> (only 3/28 or about 10%)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting!
>>>>
>>>> Most of these look like they hold a pointer to the root
analysis as
>>>> opposed to detailed objects *inside* the analysis?
>>>>
>>>> It might make sense to try to handle this very specific pattern
in a
>>>> special way of overriding the invalidate routines is too error
prone.... We
>>>> could try to make this work "automatically" but
I'm worried this would be
>>>> challenging to get right. Open to suggestions of course.
>>>>
>>>> Any other ideas about what would make sense to handle this?
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to override the invalidate routines now and
iterate
>>>> from there? I feel like you've done a lot of the research
necessary for
>>>> this already...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll keep pushing forward tomorrow with building test-suite
successfully
>>> using the new PM for the LTO pipeline (I was doing some unrelated
LLD stuff
>>> for most of today). It will be interesting to see how many
`invalidate`
>>> overrides will be needed to avoid these issues for just the LTO
pipeline on
>>> test-suite.
>>>
>>
>> I spent the better part of today working on this and will continue
>> tomorrow; this problem seems nastier than I thought. For some reason
the
>> LTO pipeline (or something about LTO) seems to hit on these issues much
>> more (I'm talking like 40k lines of ASan error reports from
building
>> test-suite with the LTO pipeline in the new PM; per-TU steps still
using
>> the old PM). Some notes:
>>
>> - BasicAA's dependence on domtree and loopinfo in the new PM seems
to
>> account for quite a few of the problems.
>> - BasicAA and other stuff are marked (by overriding `invalidate` to
>> return false) to never be invalidated because they are
"stateless". However
>> they still hold pointers and so they do need to be invalidated.
>> - CallGraph uses AssertingVH (PR28400) and so I needed a workaround
>> similar to r274656 in various passes.
>> - D21921 is holding up -- I haven't hit any issues with the core
logic
>> of that patch.
>> - AAResults holds handles to various AA result objects. This means it
>> pretty much always needs to be invalidated unless you are sure that
none of
>> the AA's will get invalidated.
>>
>>
>> The existing `invalidate` method doesn't have the right semantics
for
>> even an error-prone solution :( We are going to need to make some
>> significant changes to even get basic sanity I think. Perhaps each
analysis
>> can expose a "preserve" static function. E.g. instead of
>> `PA.preserve<Foo>();` you have to do `Foo::setPreserved(PA);`.
>> I'm actually not quite sure that that will even work. Once I have
>> test-suite fully building successfully with the LTO pipeline in the new
PM
>> I'll be able to give a more confident answer (esp. w.r.t. the
manager for
>> different IRUnitT's).
>> But at this point I'm not confident running *any* pass pipeline in
the
>> new PM without at least assertions+ASan.
>>
>> We may want to have a proper design discussion around this problem
though.
>>
>> Also I'd like to have test-suite working (by hook or by crook) with
LTO
>> in the new PM so we can get some numbers on the resident set impact of
all
>> this caching; if it is really problematic then we may need to start
talking
>> front-and-center about different invalidation policies for keeping this
in
>> check instead of leaving it as something that we will be able to patch
>> later.
>>
>>
>>
>> The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the real
"hard"
>> problem that the new PM is exposing us to is having the ability for any
>> pass to ask for any analysis on any IRUnitT (and any specific IRUnit of
>> that IRUnitT) and have the result stored somewhere and then
invalidated.
>> This means that "getAnalysisUsage" is not just a list of
passes, but much
>> more complicated and is essentially a set of arbitrary pairs
"(analysis,
>> IRUnit)" (and the associated potential tangle of dependencies
between the
>> state cached on these tuples). With the old PM, you essentially are
looking
>> at a problem of scheduling the lifetime of analyses of the same IRUnit
>> intermingled with transformation passes on that same IRUnit, so you
only
>> have the "analysis" part of the tuple above, making things
much simpler
>> (and handling dependencies is much simpler too). We've obviously
outgrown
>> this model with examples like LAA, AssumptionCacheTracker, etc. that
hack
>> around this in the old PM. We may want to have a fresh re-examination
of
>> what problems we are exactly trying to solve.
>>
>> For me, my main concern now is what changes need to be made in order to
>> feel confident running a pipeline in the new PM without
assertions+ASan.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the long post, just brain-dumping before heading home.
>>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160715/b6ae49a2/attachment.html>