llvm dev - May 2014 - [LLVMdev] Finding safe thread suspension points while JIT-ing (was: Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.)

On May 12, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion on this topic at the moment, but given
that it is potentially GC related, I figured I'd speak up.
> 
> I see two unspoken assumptions in the thread so far:
> - The runtime needs a means to bring all threads to a stop to perform some
action.  In particular, no thread can be excepted.
The *only* assumption that we want client to make of this API is that a compiler
thread can be suspended at this point without blocking other non-compiler
threads in the same process, or blocking other compiler threads associated with
a *different* LLVM context.

There will be no assumption about the state of the suspended thread’s LLVM
context and no assumption that other threads in the same context will continue
executing (if there were such a thing).
> - A single LLVM library call takes longer to complete than the runtime is
willing to wait for the thread stoppage to occur.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
> Both are entirely reasonable; I'm just spelling them out since they
might not be obvious to everyone.  The second is particularly noteworthy since
it's entirely new in LLVM.
> 
> I largely agree with Andy at the moment that the existing interface assumes
one thread per context.  I don't see the issue with continuing with this
assumption, particular since no one t.m.k. has put forward any serious plans to
change this.  If this does happen, having it occur in an opt-in manner will be a
matter of practical necessity.
I don’t think this API makes any assumption about LLVM’s threading model. I
don’t even see how this API assumes one thread per context. However, I will
concede that it does if it helps focus this discussion. Either way, the JIT
should determine the threading model and be given a C API that allows
configuring and scheduling those threads. As you correctly said, if we
hypothetically implement a parallel pass manager mode that breaks some JITs,
then clients will need to opt-in. We are not beholden to implement this callback
in that mode. We just need to make that clear.
> I find myself somewhat uncertain of the choice to leverage the pass manager
for this purpose though.  It's the entirely logical place to start, but is
it enough?  What if a single pass takes too long to complete?  Do we start
scattering these call backs throughout large parts of LLVM?  Also, how does this
interact with something like the hoped for parallel LTO?
> 
> Like Chandler, I believe there needs to be a fully thought out proposal and
discussion on this list.  I would weakly oppose the change in it's current
form solely on this basis.
Would you (or anyone) oppose a simple maySuspendContext() callback API? It would
mean nothing more than the thread(s) for a given LLVM context can be suspended
independent from other contexts.
> Andy, Juergen - Can you start by providing a bit more background
information?  What do you need the thread yield call back for?  Garbage
collection?  Other VM tasks?  User mode scheduling of threads?  Something else
entirely?
The thread yield API is primarily for user mode scheduling of threads. 

A JIT could certainly use it for GC and other VM tasks. That isn’t necessary for
us because those tasks can run concurrent with the LLVM thread until it
completes. It would only be a problem if there are resource constraints.

-Andy
> 
> Yours,
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/10/2014 11:11 AM, Juergen Ributzka wrote:
>> 
>> On May 9, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 9, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So, I'm bringing a discussion that has thus far been on
llvm-commits to llvmdev because I finally (and thanks for helping me understand
this Andy) understand what is *really* going on, and I think lots of others need
to be aware of this and involved to figure out the right path forward.
>>>> 
>>>> You can find the full review thread and more context under the
subject "[PATCH][PM] Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.", but
here is the important bit from Juergen's initial email:
>>>> 
>>>> this patch provides the necessary C/C++ APIs and infastructure
to enable fine-
>>>> grain progress report and safe suspension points after each
pass in the pass
>>>> manager. 
>>>>  
>>>> Clients can provide a callback function to the pass manager to
call after each
>>>> pass. This can be used in a variety of ways (progress report,
dumping of IR
>>>> between passes, safe suspension of threads, etc).
>>>> 
>>>> I had wrongly (perhaps because of the implementation, but
still, wrongly) focused on the progress report and IR dumping use cases. It
sounds (from talking to Andy offline, sorry for that confusion) like the real
use case is safe suspension of threads. The idea is that we would have a
callback from the pass manager into the LLVMContext which would be used to
recognize safe points at which the entire LLVMContext could be suspended, and to
expose these callbacks through C API to JIT users.
>>> 
>>> Good. Let’s table the discussion of how to report passes and just
focus on the thread suspension API. It never occurred to me that a client using
the new API for thread scheduling would not *already* be making an assumption
about one thread per context. I believe anything else will break these clients
regardless of the API. So I didn’t see this API as imposing a new restriction.
The more explicit we can be about this, the better.
>> 
>> They not only have to make the assumption of one thread per context,
but they actually have to enforce it. According to the comments in LLVMContext
there is no locking guarantee and the user/client has to be careful to use one
context per thread. This is the current C API and that is how clients are using
it right now.
>> 
>> Any future extension to the LLVMContext and to the pass manager that
change this requirement - namely running in parallel - should be backwards
compatible. Although I don’t see how this could or should be an issue to begin
with as long we default to the current single-threaded execution model per
LLVMContext. Anything that changes this behavior should and have to be
explicitly requested by the client. That means there has to be a new C API call
to communicate this information. For now all the threads are created by the
client and I think this should also stay so in the future.
>> 
>>>> Increasingly, I can't fathom a way to get a good design for
safe suspension of JIT-ing threads using callbacks tied to when passes run
today. I think it is a huge mistake to bake this into the C API at this point.
If you need this functionality in the C API, with a design we can use going
forward, I'd like to see a *really* careful write up of exactly what the
suspension point requirements are and a design for achieving them. I think it
should be completely independent from any infrastructure for reporting or
dumping IR in pass managers.
>>> 
>>> Yes, there absolutely needs to be a way to expose functionality
within LLVM in its current form through the C API. We can say that the API works
under some explicit set of rules. If some future LLVM can be configured in a way
that breaks the rules, you don’t get the callback in that case.
>> 
>> It is already a conscious choice of the client if and how to use
threads. This choice already affects how callbacks that we already have are
implemented by the client. The same would apply for the proposed callback. The
client knows exactly the conditions, because it is in full control of setting up
the environment.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> I think something much simpler than this might work outside of
the C API, where we can essentially change how it works when we start designing
how multiple threads will actually work within an LLVMContext. Would that work?
Is there a way to make progress more rapidly there?
>>>> 
>>>> Ultimately, this is opening a huge can of worms if we put it
into the C API, as I think it is going to fundamentally impact what options we
actually have for                   parallelizing parts of LLVM in the future.
If we want to go there, we need be *incredibly* explicit about what assumptions
are being made here.
>> 
>> Yes, this will definitely impact the design, but only in a positive way
:D There is only one big requirement and that is a given: The thread cannot hold
a global mutex when making this call. This would deadlock everything - even
other concurrent running contexts in todays implementation.
>> 
>> When a thread group is running concurrently in the future pass manager
then it clear that the suspension of any thread in this thread group might
deadlock the remaining threads in the thread group and that is perfectly fine.
Also having this callback being fired concurrently is fine too. The client
created a parallel pass manager and has to write the callback thread-safe.
>> 
>> The important thing here is that LLVM is holding the thread hostage and
we need the control back to safely suspend it. It is possible suspend the thread
from outside, but then it might be inside a system call or library call that
holds a mutex. This could deadlock the whole application. By giving the control
back to the client via the call back we know that this cannot happen. We know
that LLVM might hold some mutex local to the context, but that is fine and won’t
deadlock the whole application.
>> 
>> -Juergen
>> 
>>> 
>>> Let’s be explicit then.
>>> 
>>> We will always need to be able to configure LLVM with one thread
per context. Always. So it’s not like we’re adding something that could become
unusable in the future. Does anyone disagree?
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, I have no idea why the callback would not work with
parallel context. If you suspend a thread within a thread group, it is totally
expected that the other threads will also eventually block.
>>> 
>>> Tangentially, how many other places do we assume that an
LLVMContext corresponds to a thread?
>>> 
>>> -Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140512/7d8d9c69/attachment.html>

On 12 May 2014 17:20, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com>
> wrote:
>
>  I don't have a strong opinion on this topic at the moment, but given
that
> it is potentially GC related, I figured I'd speak up.
>
> I see two unspoken assumptions in the thread so far:
> - The runtime needs a means to bring all threads to a stop to perform some
> action.  In particular, no thread can be excepted.
>
>
> The *only* assumption that we want client to make of this API is that a
> compiler thread can be suspended at this point without blocking other
> non-compiler threads in the same process, or blocking other compiler
> threads associated with a *different* LLVM context.
>
> There will be no assumption about the state of the suspended thread’s LLVM
> context and no assumption that other threads in the same context will
> continue executing (if there were such a thing).
>
> - A single LLVM library call takes longer to complete than the runtime is
> willing to wait for the thread stoppage to occur.
>
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by this.
>
> Both are entirely reasonable; I'm just spelling them out since they
might
> not be obvious to everyone.  The second is particularly noteworthy since
> it's entirely new in LLVM.
>
> I largely agree with Andy at the moment that the existing interface
> assumes one thread per context.  I don't see the issue with continuing
with
> this assumption, particular since no one t.m.k. has put forward any serious
> plans to change this.  If this does happen, having it occur in an opt-in
> manner will be a matter of practical necessity.
>
>
> I don’t think this API makes any assumption about LLVM’s threading model.
> I don’t even see how this API assumes one thread per context. However, I
> will concede that it does if it helps focus this discussion. Either way,
> the JIT should determine the threading model and be given a C API that
> allows configuring and scheduling those threads. As you correctly said, if
> we hypothetically implement a parallel pass manager mode that breaks some
> JITs, then clients will need to opt-in. We are not beholden to implement
> this callback in that mode. We just need to make that clear.
>
> I find myself somewhat uncertain of the choice to leverage the pass
> manager for this purpose though.  It's the entirely logical place to
start,
> but is it enough?  What if a single pass takes too long to complete?  Do we
> start scattering these call backs throughout large parts of LLVM?  Also,
> how does this interact with something like the hoped for parallel LTO?
>
> Like Chandler, I believe there needs to be a fully thought out proposal
> and discussion on this list.  I would weakly oppose the change in it's
> current form solely on this basis.
>
>
> Would you (or anyone) oppose a simple maySuspendContext() callback API? It
> would mean nothing more than the thread(s) for a given LLVM context can be
> suspended independent from other contexts.
>
I think this is the right approach. So a given thread hits a safe point, it
optionally calls a "suspend check" or "i an safe to suspend right
now"
callback if set. It doesn't stop other threads, it doesn't continue
until
the function returns.

If you want to stop all threads then the user callback may contain a
barrier and count down how many threads have stopped until it sees all of
them.

Nick
> Andy, Juergen - Can you start by providing a bit more background
> information?  What do you need the thread yield call back for?  Garbage
> collection?  Other VM tasks?  User mode scheduling of threads?  Something
> else entirely?
>
>
> The thread yield API is primarily for user mode scheduling of threads.
>
> A JIT could certainly use it for GC and other VM tasks. That isn’t
> necessary for us because those tasks can run concurrent with the LLVM
> thread until it completes. It would only be a problem if there are resource
> constraints.
>
> -Andy
>
>
> Yours,
> Philip
>
>
>
> On 05/10/2014 11:11 AM, Juergen Ributzka wrote:
>
>
>  On May 9, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On May 9, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com> wrote:
>
>  So, I'm bringing a discussion that has thus far been on llvm-commits
to
> llvmdev because I finally (and thanks for helping me understand this Andy)
> understand what is *really* going on, and I think lots of others need to be
> aware of this and involved to figure out the right path forward.
>
>  You can find the full review thread and more context under the subject
> "[PATCH][PM] Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.", but
here is the
> important bit from Juergen's initial email:
>
>  this patch provides the necessary C/C++ APIs and infastructure to enable
>> fine-
>> grain progress report and safe suspension points after each pass in the
>> pass
>> manager.
>
>
>
> Clients can provide a callback function to the pass manager to call after
>> each
>> pass. This can be used in a variety of ways (progress report, dumping
of
>> IR
>> between passes, safe suspension of threads, etc).
>
>
>  I had wrongly (perhaps because of the implementation, but still,
> wrongly) focused on the progress report and IR dumping use cases. It sounds
> (from talking to Andy offline, sorry for that confusion) like the real use
> case is safe suspension of threads. The idea is that we would have a
> callback from the pass manager into the LLVMContext which would be used to
> recognize safe points at which the entire LLVMContext could be suspended,
> and to expose these callbacks through C API to JIT users.
>
>
>  Good. Let’s table the discussion of how to report passes and just focus
> on the thread suspension API. It never occurred to me that a client using
> the new API for thread scheduling would not *already* be making an
> assumption about one thread per context. I believe anything else will break
> these clients regardless of the API. So I didn’t see this API as imposing a
> new restriction. The more explicit we can be about this, the better.
>
>
>  They not only have to make the assumption of one thread per context, but
> they actually have to enforce it. According to the comments in LLVMContext
> there is no locking guarantee and the user/client has to be careful to use
> one context per thread. This is the current C API and that is how clients
> are using it right now.
>
>  Any future extension to the LLVMContext and to the pass manager that
> change this requirement - namely running in parallel - should be backwards
> compatible. Although I don’t see how this could or should be an issue to
> begin with as long we default to the current single-threaded execution
> model per LLVMContext. Anything that changes this behavior should and have
> to be explicitly requested by the client. That means there has to be a new
> C API call to communicate this information. For now all the threads are
> created by the client and I think this should also stay so in the future.
>
>   Increasingly, I can't fathom a way to get a good design for safe
> suspension of JIT-ing threads using callbacks tied to when passes run
> today. I think it is a huge mistake to bake this into the C API at this
> point. If you need this functionality in the C API, with a design we can
> use going forward, I'd like to see a *really* careful write up of
exactly
> what the suspension point requirements are and a design for achieving them.
> I think it should be completely independent from any infrastructure for
> reporting or dumping IR in pass managers.
>
>
>  Yes, there absolutely needs to be a way to expose functionality within
> LLVM in its current form through the C API. We can say that the API works
> under some explicit set of rules. If some future LLVM can be configured in
> a way that breaks the rules, you don’t get the callback in that case.
>
>
>  It is already a conscious choice of the client if and how to use
> threads. This choice already affects how callbacks that we already have are
> implemented by the client. The same would apply for the proposed callback.
> The client knows exactly the conditions, because it is in full control of
> setting up the environment.
>
>
>  I think something much simpler than this might work outside of the C
> API, where we can essentially change how it works when we start designing
> how multiple threads will actually work within an LLVMContext. Would that
> work? Is there a way to make progress more rapidly there?
>
>  Ultimately, this is opening a huge can of worms if we put it into the C
> API, as I think it is going to fundamentally impact what options we
> actually have for parallelizing parts of LLVM in the future. If we want to
> go there, we need be *incredibly* explicit about what assumptions are being
> made here.
>
>
>  Yes, this will definitely impact the design, but only in a positive way
> :D There is only one big requirement and that is a given: The thread cannot
> hold a global mutex when making this call. This would deadlock everything -
> even other concurrent running contexts in todays implementation.
>
>  When a thread group is running concurrently in the future pass manager
> then it clear that the suspension of any thread in this thread group might
> deadlock the remaining threads in the thread group and that is perfectly
> fine. Also having this callback being fired concurrently is fine too. The
> client created a parallel pass manager and has to write the callback
> thread-safe.
>
>  The important thing here is that LLVM is holding the thread hostage and
> we need the control back to safely suspend it. It is possible suspend the
> thread from outside, but then it might be inside a system call or library
> call that holds a mutex. This could deadlock the whole application. By
> giving the control back to the client via the call back we know that this
> cannot happen. We know that LLVM might hold some mutex local to the
> context, but that is fine and won’t deadlock the whole application.
>
>  -Juergen
>
>
>  Let’s be explicit then.
>
>  We will always need to be able to configure LLVM with one thread per
> context. Always. So it’s not like we’re adding something that could become
> unusable in the future. Does anyone disagree?
>
>  Incidentally, I have no idea why the callback would not work with
> parallel context. If you suspend a thread within a thread group, it is
> totally expected that the other threads will also eventually block.
>
>  Tangentially, how many other places do we assume that an LLVMContext
> corresponds to a thread?
>
>  -Andy
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listLLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.eduhttp://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/20140512/152aabb1/attachment.html>

Sounds good. Lets get started by nailing down the C API and semantics for this
first.

I mirrored the C API for the LLVM context diagnostic handler and used Andy’s
suggested name for the callback.
The opaque handle was suggested by Duncan and can provide optional user
specified information that is
provided back during the callback (i.e. barrier, etc).

Cheers,
Juergen 

Core.h:
typedef void (*LLVMMaySuspendCallback)(LLVMContextRef, void *);

/**
 * Set the may-suspend callback function for this context.
 *
 * @see LLVMContext::setMaySuspendCallback()
 */
void LLVMContextSetMaySuspendCallback(LLVMContextRef C,
                                      LLVMMaySuspendCallback Callback,
                                      void *OpaqueHandle);

LLVMContext.h:
/// \brief Registers a may-suspend callback with the context.
///
/// The may-suspend callback function may be called by LLVM to transfer
/// control back to the client that invoked the LLVM compilation. The client
/// is not garantueed to ever receive this callback. It is at the sole
/// discretion of LLVM to do so and only if it can guarantee that suspending
/// the thread won't block any forward progress in other LLVM contexts.
void setMaySuspendCallback(MaySuspendCallbackTy Callback, void *OpaqueHandle);

/// \brief Calls the may-suspend callback (if applicable).
///
/// This transfers control back to the client, which may suspend the current
/// thread. Only call this method when LLVM doesn't hold any global mutex or
/// cannot block the execution in another LLVM context.
void callMaySuspendCallback();

On May 12, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote:
> Would you (or anyone) oppose a simple maySuspendContext() callback API? It
would mean nothing more than the thread(s) for a given LLVM context can be
suspended independent from other contexts.
> 
> I think this is the right approach. So a given thread hits a safe point, it
optionally calls a "suspend check" or "i an safe to suspend right
now" callback if set. It doesn't stop other threads, it doesn't
continue until the function returns.
> 
> If you want to stop all threads then the user callback may contain a
barrier and count down how many threads have stopped until it sees all of them.
> 
> Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140513/2ea7888c/attachment.html>

On 05/12/2014 05:20 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:
>
> The thread yield API is primarily for user mode scheduling of threads.
>
> A JIT could certainly use it for GC and other VM tasks. That isn’t 
> necessary for us because those tasks can run concurrent with the LLVM 
> thread until it completes. It would only be a problem if there are 
> resource constraints.
Having the use case up front would have been very useful.  I had my own 
set of assumptions about what you were doing - gc safepoints - which 
turned out to be inaccurate.  Can I ask that you make an effort to spell 
out the intended use case in future proposals?  This has happened a 
couple of times now and it's wasting both my time and yours.  I'll try 
to ask more explicitly as well, rather than make my own assumptions 
about what you're doing.

Thanks,
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140515/5d5c1704/attachment.html>