Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-05 00:08 UTC
[llvm-dev] Using -time-passes in LTO with splitting
Hi, (re-sent to the correct llvm-dev) Timing is definitively an issue in multithreaded mode (I think it is a known issue, but we may not have a PR opened yet). “Someone” needs to reimplement it I guess… I just hasn’t been a high priority for anyone I think (and it won’t be for me in the next couple of months at least, but I’ll be happy to help on thinking about it and/or reviewing patches). About your comment on TSan, note that there are already some locks (for example in getNamedRegionTimer()). I wonder if the problem is about race condition or the way the timing are computed. — Mehdi> On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org <mailto:slarin at codeaurora.org>> wrote: > > Peter, > > When you started work on parallel codegen – was it your (implicit) intent to have most basic compiler services available? It sounds like a generic question, but as I use parallel codegen more and more I see numerous issues with some things not being exactly thread safe… To be more specific I tried to time passes run in multiple threads using (-time-passes) and failed miserably. > > I guess my bigger question, and not only to you personally, do we have communal will to make sure that things like timing are working properly in multithread use mode? > > …if I miss some previous discussion on the topic, please forgive me and point me to the thread… > > Thanks. > > Sergei > > P. S. > > Thread sanitizer does not seem to get this as an issue. > > > --- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] On Behalf Of Teresa Johnson > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:00 PM > To: Alex Rosenberg > Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>> List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: ThinLTO File Format > > Hi Alex, > > After outlining some of the rationale for using native-wrapped, there were a couple of responses that indicated native-wrapped support was reasonable, but they preferred to see bitcode-only first (Phillip and Rafael). This is essentially what this proposal and the patches do - I've implemented some of the basic support for looking for and parsing the native-wrapped sections, but the bitcode-only reading/writing support is more complete. > > In fact, as described in this RFC, I designed the native-wrapped format to utilize the same bitcode encoding for most of the ThinLTO information, so it uses most of the same underlying bitcode interfaces anyway. The additional support required for native-wrapped is not tremendous, and is similar to existing support in the LLVM tree for reading native-wrapped bitcode. > > We believe that there will be clang/llvm users who will find native-wrapped ThinLTO easier to use for the same reasons (e.g. compatibility with existing native toolchains), so I don't expect this to be Google specific. > > Thanks, > Teresa > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org>> wrote: > I think I've read all the feedback posted regarding your May proposal. I have yet to see a single response that wants native object wrapped bitcode. > > If the only use for native object wrapped bitcode is for your project at Google, then it probably shouldn't go into the tree against all of these objections. > > Alex > > On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com <mailto:tejohnson at google.com>> wrote: > >> As discussed in the high-level ThinLTO RFC (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html>), we would like to add support for native object wrapped bitcode and ThinLTO information. Based on comments on the mailing list, I am adding support for ThinLTO in both normal bitcode files, as well as native-object wrapped bitcode. >> >> The following RFC describes the planned file format of ThinLTO information both in the bitcode-only and native object wrapped cases. It doesn't yet define the exact record format, as I would like feedback on the overall block design first. >> >> I've also implemented the support for reading and writing the bitcode blocks in the following patch: >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11722 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11722&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=WVxrKkHnjKr75fCQ-UkGke8dk6KpZcFCnLWVrJ3G188&e=> >> >> The ThinLTO data structures and the file APIs are described in a separate RFC I will be sending simultaneously, with pointers to the patches implementing them. >> >> Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks! >> Teresa >> >> ThinLTO File Format >> >> Bitcode ThinLTO Support >> ThinLTO Bitcode Blocks >> THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK >> THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK >> THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK >> Bitcode Combined Function Summary >> Native-Wrapped ThinLTO Support >> Native-wrapped bitcode >> Native-Wrapped Combined Function Summary >> >> This document discusses the high-level file format used to represent ThinLTO function index/summary information. It covers the index created at the module level (produced by the phase-1 -c compiles) and the combined function index/summary generated by the phase-2 linker step of a ThinLTO compile. More information about ThinLTO compilation can be found in the Updated RFC at: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html> >> >> As discussed in that document and subsequent mailing list discussions, we will add support for ThinLTO with both normal bitcode-only intermediate files, as well as native-wrapped bitcode files. This document describes the ThinLTO format for both of these file types. The formats were designed to allow as much sharing of APIs and implementation as possible between the two file types. >> >> The ThinLTO information is written to the per-module (translation unit) intermediate files during the phase-1 (-c) compile. They are read by the phase-2 linker step, which aggregates them into a combined function index/summary file, and which by default does not need to parse the rest of the module IR. The phase-3 parallel backend processes that each compile a single module into a final object file read the combined function index/summary file during importing, but do not need to look at the module’s own ThinLTO information. >> >> Since as noted above the usual normal non-ThinLTO module IR and its ThinLTO information are not typically needed in the same compile step, the following design tries to minimize the required parsing of the normal module bitcode IR when reading the ThinLTO information, and vice versa. >> Bitcode ThinLTO Support >> >> This section describes the representation of ThinLTO for bitcode-only intermediate files. >> ThinLTO Bitcode Blocks >> There will be three ThinLTO bitcode blocks nested within an outer THINLTO_BLOCK, which itself is nested within the outer MODULE_BLOCK: >> >> <MODULE_BLOCK> >> ... >> <THINLTO_BLOCK BlockID=19 ...> >> <THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK BlockID=20 ...> >> </THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK> >> <THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK BlockID=21 ...> >> </THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK> >> <THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK BlockID=22 ...> >> </THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK> >> </THINLTO_BLOCK> >> </MODULE_BLOCK> >> >> These block IDs are defined along with other LLVM bitcode IDs in include/llvm/Bitcode/LLVMBitCodes.h: >> >> namespace llvm { >> namespace bitc { >> // The only top-level block type defined is for a module. >> enum BlockIDs { >> // Blocks >> MODULE_BLOCK_ID = FIRST_APPLICATION_BLOCKID, >> >> // Module sub-block id's >> ... >> THINLTO_BLOCK_ID, >> >> // ThinLTO sub-block id's. >> THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK_ID, >> THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK_ID >> THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK_ID, >> }; >> >> The outer THINLTO_BLOCK will contain a record with the version ID of the ThinLTO information, which will evolve as the importing algorithm is tuned. >> >> The exact record formats within each of the THINLTO_*_BLOCKs are still TBD, but the following is an overview of what they will contain: >> >> THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK >> This block contains a record for each function in the summary. The record will contain the ValueID of the corresponding function symbol in the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK (which contains the function’s name string), as well as the bitcode offset of the corresponding function summary record. The latter enables fast seeking when the function summary section is read lazily. >> THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK >> This block contains a record for each module with functions in the combined function index/summary file, holding the module ID and its path string (so that the module can be located during phase-3 importing). This block is not needed in the per-module function index/summary, as the module path is known by the linker when the file is loaded. Additionally, the unique module ID is assigned to each module by the phase-2 linker step when creating the combined index (used to attain consistent renaming during static promotion in the phase-3 backend). >> THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK >> This block contains a record for each function available for importing. At a minimum, it holds the index into the THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK of the module containing the function, as well as the bitcode offset of the function’s FUNCTION_BLOCK within that module. The THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK index will be 0 in the per-module function summary, as that section does not exist yet, but will be non-zero in the combined index/summary file (see Bitcode Combined Function Summary section below). It also will be used to hold information about the function that is useful in making importing decisions (e.g. its instruction count and profile entry count). >> >> There are several reasons for this block organization: >> 1. Nesting ThinLTO subblocks within an parent THINLTO_BLOCK allows the ThinLTO information to be quickly skipped during frontend parsing in the backend phase-3 parallel backend compile steps, when the ThinLTO information in the module is not needed. >> 2. Nesting within the MODULE_BLOCK allows the THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK records to share the function name strings with the MODULE_BLOCK’s function symbols. These strings are saved in the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK nested within the Module block. Note that it would be faster to parse ThinLTO blocks during the phase-2 linker step if they were not nested within the MODULE_BLOCK (which could be skipped in one step using the size in the MODULE_BLOCK entry), since the phase-2 parser is only interested in the ThinLTO blocks. But this block placement enables greater size efficiency. >> 3. Separating the ThinLTO function symtab information from the rest of the function summary has a couple of benefits: >> a. Mirrors how the information is structured in the native-wrapped case, where the native object symbol table is leveraged for holding the symbol name plus index into the summary section. This in turn enables better sharing of the bitcode parsing code and interfaces (discussed in more detail below in the native-wrapped description). >> b. Enables lazy reading of the function’s summary information, delayed until we are considering importing that function, while allowing fast checking of whether the function is available for importing (via presence in the ThinLTO function symtab). >> >> Because, as mentioned earlier, the THINLTO_BLOCK and the rest of the MODULE_BLOCK are not typically both needed in a single compile step, we will implement a ThinLTO-specific bitcode reader class (ThinLTOBitcodeReader) to handle parsing of the ThinLTO blocks. This bitcode reader will hold a pointer to the ThinLTO data structure to be populated with the ThinLTO information (data structures described in a separate “ThinLTO File API and Data Structures” RFC which should be sent out at the same time). It will ignore all MODULE_BLOCK subblocks except the THINLTO_BLOCK, the BLOCKINFO_BLOCK containing abbrev IDs, and the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK. The VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK parser is specialized/simplified since there will not be any Value objects created during ThinLTO parsing, we simply need to correlate each string with its ValueID in the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK record. >> >> Bitcode Combined Function Summary >> >> The combined function index/summary (thin archive) file created by the phase-2 linker step will also be bitcode. It will consist of a MODULE_BLOCK containing only a THINLTO_BLOCK, a BLOCKINFO_BLOCK, and a VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK. The THINLTO_BLOCK will contain all three subblocks, with the THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK and the THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK holding the aggregated per-module ThinLTO information. As noted earlier, it will also contain a THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK created from the linked modules. The combined index will exclude symbols that are undefined, duplicate (e.g. comdats) or unlikely to benefit from importing. The THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK offsets in the THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK records are updated to reflect the new offset into the combined THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK, and the THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK records are updated to include the appropriate module index into the THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK. >> >> Native-Wrapped ThinLTO Support >> >> This section describes the representation of ThinLTO for native-wrapped bitcode intermediate files. The discussion here uses ELF as an example, but should also apply to other formats such as COFF and Mach-O [1]. >> Native-wrapped bitcode >> >> There is already support in LLVM for reading native-wrapped bitcode, where the bitcode is contained within an .llvmbc section. For ThinLTO, unlike in the earlier bitcode-only case, the ThinLTO information is not nested within the MODULE_BLOCK contained within the .llvmbc section. Instead, the native object will contain a symbol table, and special sections holding the additional ThinLTO information. These sections are the function summary section (.llvm_thinlto_funcsum) containing the function’s bitcode offset and summary information for importing decisions, as well as the module path string table (.llvm_thinlto_modstrtab). >> >> For simplicity and consistency with the bitcode-only format and interfaces, the contents of the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab will be encoded with bitcode. The .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab section will contain bitcode for a single THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK. The format and contents of this block will be identical to the equivalent block in the bitcode-only case. Similarly, the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section will contain bitcode for a single THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK. The format and contents will be identical to the equivalent block in the bitcode-only case, however note that the bitcode offset for the FUNCTION_BLOCK is the offset within the .llvmbc section bitcode (which contains the function IR). >> >> As with the symbol table in a normal object file, the symbol table for the native-object wrapped bitcode file will hold entries for both defined and undefined but referenced symbols. The entries for functions defined in the module specify the location of that function’s summary via the st_shndx (index of .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section) and st_value (bitcode offset within .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section). The st_size field will hold the size of the function summary entry in the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section. Note that for functions that are deemed unlikely to benefit from importing (e.g. large and cold), the summary data will be suppressed and the symtab entry will simply have a zero offset and size. >> >> The symbol’s visibility can be emitted in the st_other field which typically holds the visibility info. If a tool such as objcopy or ld -r modifies the symbol visibility, this change is recorded in the symbol table. The change will be propagated to the bitcode when the backend compiles the native-wrapped bitcode. >> >> E.g.: >> >> Section Headers: >> [Nr] Name Type Address Offset >> Size EntSize Flags Link Info Align >> [ 0] NULL 0000000000000000 00000000 >> 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0 0 0 >> [ 1] .shstrtab STRTAB 0000000000000000 0000024b >> 0000000000000059 0000000000000000 0 0 1 >> [ 2] .text PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040 >> 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16 >> … >> [ 5] .llvmbc PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040 >> 000000000000044c 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4 >> [ 6] .llvm_thinlto_funcsum PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040 >> 0000000000000400 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4 >> [ 7] .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000440 >> 0000000000000013 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4 >> >> Symbol table '.symtab' contains 11 entries: >> Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name >> 0: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND >> 1: 0000000000000000 0 FILE LOCAL DEFAULT ABS t1.c >> 2: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 2 >> 3: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 4 >> 4: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 5 >> 5: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 6 >> 6: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 7 >> 7: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 8 >> 8: 0000000000000040 40 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 6 bar >> 9: 0000000000000000 40 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 6 foo >> 10: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT UND blah >> >> The section index value in the symtab entry for ‘foo’ are 6 and 0x0, respectively, meaning that the function summary info for ‘foo’ can be found in section 6 (.llvm_thinlto_funcsum) at offset 0x0. Similarly, the function summary info for ‘bar’ can be found in .llvm_thinlto_funcsum at offset 0x40. The size refers to the size of the corresponding function summary entry. >> >> Native-Wrapped Combined Function Summary >> >> The combined function summary (thin archive) file created by the phase-2 linker step can also be in native object format. It will contain the symbol table, and just the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab sections, combined across all of the linked modules. The combined symbol table, .llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab sections will exclude symbols that are undefined, duplicate (e.g. comdats) or unlikely to benefit from importing. The offsets in the symbol table are updated to reflect the new offset into the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section, and the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum updated to include the appropriate module path index in the new .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab section. >> >> ________________ >> [1] COFF and Mach-O symbol tables have similar fields. The main differences are that Mach-O symbol table entries don’t contain the symbol size, so the size is deduced by looking for the next symbol start address, and COFF holds the symbol sizes in auxiliary info that follows each symbol entry. See also http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/coff/symtab.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.delorie.com_djgpp_doc_coff_symtab.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=7isNRRG84wFLU9ztTKYIXpp2tc_k91DwDH6bOpuOEsQ&e=> and https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/MachORuntime/index.html#//apple_ref/c/tag/nlist_64 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developer.apple.com_library_mac_documentation_DeveloperTools_Conceptual_MachORuntime_index.html-23__apple-5Fref_c_tag_nlist-5F64&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=4XqKCNsoQF6E-9s1t50vPGyEPPRQOhjzbY8iGykl-vU&e=> >> >> -- >> Teresa Johnson | >> Software Engineer | >> tejohnson at google.com <mailto:tejohnson at google.com> | >> 408-460-2413 <tel:408-460-2413>_______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> > > > > -- > Teresa Johnson | > Software Engineer | > tejohnson at google.com <mailto:tejohnson at google.com> | > 408-460-2413-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160104/0fbf644c/attachment.html>
Sergei Larin via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-05 15:14 UTC
[llvm-dev] Using -time-passes in LTO with splitting
Mehdi,
Thank you for the explanation/confirmation. At this juncture timing in
multithreaded mode is not the top issue for us as well, but at least I realize
now that there is a general need for it, so if we can allocate any time on it I
will bring it up for public discussion first.
Thank you again.
Sergei
---
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation
From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 6:08 PM
To: Sergei Larin
Cc: Peter Collingbourne; llvm-dev; Teresa Johnson; Tobias Edler von Koch
Subject: Re: Using -time-passes in LTO with splitting
Hi,
(re-sent to the correct llvm-dev)
Timing is definitively an issue in multithreaded mode (I think it is a known
issue, but we may not have a PR opened yet). “Someone” needs to reimplement it I
guess…
I just hasn’t been a high priority for anyone I think (and it won’t be for me in
the next couple of months at least, but I’ll be happy to help on thinking about
it and/or reviewing patches).
About your comment on TSan, note that there are already some locks (for example
in getNamedRegionTimer()). I wonder if the problem is about race condition or
the way the timing are computed.
—
Mehdi
On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote:
Peter,
When you started work on parallel codegen – was it your (implicit) intent to
have most basic compiler services available? It sounds like a generic question,
but as I use parallel codegen more and more I see numerous issues with some
things not being exactly thread safe… To be more specific I tried to time passes
run in multiple threads using (-time-passes) and failed miserably.
I guess my bigger question, and not only to you personally, do we have
communal will to make sure that things like timing are working properly in
multithread use mode?
…if I miss some previous discussion on the topic, please forgive me and point
me to the thread…
Thanks.
Sergei
P. S.
Thread sanitizer does not seem to get this as an issue.
---
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation
From: <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu> llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu [ <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>
mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Teresa Johnson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Alex Rosenberg
Cc: < <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: ThinLTO File Format
Hi Alex,
After outlining some of the rationale for using native-wrapped, there were a
couple of responses that indicated native-wrapped support was reasonable, but
they preferred to see bitcode-only first (Phillip and Rafael). This is
essentially what this proposal and the patches do - I've implemented some of
the basic support for looking for and parsing the native-wrapped sections, but
the bitcode-only reading/writing support is more complete.
In fact, as described in this RFC, I designed the native-wrapped format to
utilize the same bitcode encoding for most of the ThinLTO information, so it
uses most of the same underlying bitcode interfaces anyway. The additional
support required for native-wrapped is not tremendous, and is similar to
existing support in the LLVM tree for reading native-wrapped bitcode.
We believe that there will be clang/llvm users who will find native-wrapped
ThinLTO easier to use for the same reasons (e.g. compatibility with existing
native toolchains), so I don't expect this to be Google specific.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg < <mailto:alexr at
leftfield.org> alexr at leftfield.org> wrote:
I think I've read all the feedback posted regarding your May proposal. I
have yet to see a single response that wants native object wrapped bitcode.
If the only use for native object wrapped bitcode is for your project at Google,
then it probably shouldn't go into the tree against all of these objections.
Alex
On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Teresa Johnson < <mailto:tejohnson at
google.com> tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
As discussed in the high-level ThinLTO RFC (
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), we would like
to add support for native object wrapped bitcode and ThinLTO information. Based
on comments on the mailing list, I am adding support for ThinLTO in both normal
bitcode files, as well as native-object wrapped bitcode.
The following RFC describes the planned file format of ThinLTO information both
in the bitcode-only and native object wrapped cases. It doesn't yet define
the exact record format, as I would like feedback on the overall block design
first.
I've also implemented the support for reading and writing the bitcode blocks
in the following patch:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11722&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=WVxrKkHnjKr75fCQ-UkGke8dk6KpZcFCnLWVrJ3G188&e=>
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11722
The ThinLTO data structures and the file APIs are described in a separate RFC I
will be sending simultaneously, with pointers to the patches implementing them.
Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks!
Teresa
ThinLTO File Format
Bitcode ThinLTO Support
ThinLTO Bitcode Blocks
THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK
THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK
THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK
Bitcode Combined Function Summary
Native-Wrapped ThinLTO Support
Native-wrapped bitcode
Native-Wrapped Combined Function Summary
This document discusses the high-level file format used to represent ThinLTO
function index/summary information. It covers the index created at the module
level (produced by the phase-1 -c compiles) and the combined function
index/summary generated by the phase-2 linker step of a ThinLTO compile. More
information about ThinLTO compilation can be found in the Updated RFC at:
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html
As discussed in that document and subsequent mailing list discussions, we will
add support for ThinLTO with both normal bitcode-only intermediate files, as
well as native-wrapped bitcode files. This document describes the ThinLTO format
for both of these file types. The formats were designed to allow as much sharing
of APIs and implementation as possible between the two file types.
The ThinLTO information is written to the per-module (translation unit)
intermediate files during the phase-1 (-c) compile. They are read by the phase-2
linker step, which aggregates them into a combined function index/summary file,
and which by default does not need to parse the rest of the module IR. The
phase-3 parallel backend processes that each compile a single module into a
final object file read the combined function index/summary file during
importing, but do not need to look at the module’s own ThinLTO information.
Since as noted above the usual normal non-ThinLTO module IR and its ThinLTO
information are not typically needed in the same compile step, the following
design tries to minimize the required parsing of the normal module bitcode IR
when reading the ThinLTO information, and vice versa.
Bitcode ThinLTO Support
This section describes the representation of ThinLTO for bitcode-only
intermediate files.
ThinLTO Bitcode Blocks
There will be three ThinLTO bitcode blocks nested within an outer THINLTO_BLOCK,
which itself is nested within the outer MODULE_BLOCK:
<MODULE_BLOCK>
...
<THINLTO_BLOCK BlockID=19 ...>
<THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK BlockID=20 ...>
</THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK>
<THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK BlockID=21 ...>
</THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK>
<THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK BlockID=22 ...>
</THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK>
</THINLTO_BLOCK>
</MODULE_BLOCK>
These block IDs are defined along with other LLVM bitcode IDs in
include/llvm/Bitcode/LLVMBitCodes.h:
namespace llvm {
namespace bitc {
// The only top-level block type defined is for a module.
enum BlockIDs {
// Blocks
MODULE_BLOCK_ID = FIRST_APPLICATION_BLOCKID,
// Module sub-block id's
...
THINLTO_BLOCK_ID,
// ThinLTO sub-block id's.
THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK_ID,
THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK_ID
THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK_ID,
};
The outer THINLTO_BLOCK will contain a record with the version ID of the ThinLTO
information, which will evolve as the importing algorithm is tuned.
The exact record formats within each of the THINLTO_*_BLOCKs are still TBD, but
the following is an overview of what they will contain:
THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK
This block contains a record for each function in the summary. The record will
contain the ValueID of the corresponding function symbol in the
VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK (which contains the function’s name string), as well as the
bitcode offset of the corresponding function summary record. The latter enables
fast seeking when the function summary section is read lazily.
THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK
This block contains a record for each module with functions in the combined
function index/summary file, holding the module ID and its path string (so that
the module can be located during phase-3 importing). This block is not needed in
the per-module function index/summary, as the module path is known by the linker
when the file is loaded. Additionally, the unique module ID is assigned to each
module by the phase-2 linker step when creating the combined index (used to
attain consistent renaming during static promotion in the phase-3 backend).
THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK
This block contains a record for each function available for importing. At a
minimum, it holds the index into the THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK of the module
containing the function, as well as the bitcode offset of the function’s
FUNCTION_BLOCK within that module. The THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK index will be
0 in the per-module function summary, as that section does not exist yet, but
will be non-zero in the combined index/summary file (see Bitcode Combined
Function Summary section below). It also will be used to hold information about
the function that is useful in making importing decisions (e.g. its instruction
count and profile entry count).
There are several reasons for this block organization:
1. Nesting ThinLTO subblocks within an parent THINLTO_BLOCK allows the
ThinLTO information to be quickly skipped during frontend parsing in the backend
phase-3 parallel backend compile steps, when the ThinLTO information in the
module is not needed.
2. Nesting within the MODULE_BLOCK allows the THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK records to
share the function name strings with the MODULE_BLOCK’s function symbols. These
strings are saved in the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK nested within the Module block. Note
that it would be faster to parse ThinLTO blocks during the phase-2 linker step
if they were not nested within the MODULE_BLOCK (which could be skipped in one
step using the size in the MODULE_BLOCK entry), since the phase-2 parser is only
interested in the ThinLTO blocks. But this block placement enables greater size
efficiency.
3. Separating the ThinLTO function symtab information from the rest of the
function summary has a couple of benefits:
a. Mirrors how the information is structured in the native-wrapped case,
where the native object symbol table is leveraged for holding the symbol name
plus index into the summary section. This in turn enables better sharing of the
bitcode parsing code and interfaces (discussed in more detail below in the
native-wrapped description).
b. Enables lazy reading of the function’s summary information, delayed until
we are considering importing that function, while allowing fast checking of
whether the function is available for importing (via presence in the ThinLTO
function symtab).
Because, as mentioned earlier, the THINLTO_BLOCK and the rest of the
MODULE_BLOCK are not typically both needed in a single compile step, we will
implement a ThinLTO-specific bitcode reader class (ThinLTOBitcodeReader) to
handle parsing of the ThinLTO blocks. This bitcode reader will hold a pointer to
the ThinLTO data structure to be populated with the ThinLTO information (data
structures described in a separate “ThinLTO File API and Data Structures” RFC
which should be sent out at the same time). It will ignore all MODULE_BLOCK
subblocks except the THINLTO_BLOCK, the BLOCKINFO_BLOCK containing abbrev IDs,
and the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK. The VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK parser is
specialized/simplified since there will not be any Value objects created during
ThinLTO parsing, we simply need to correlate each string with its ValueID in the
VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK record.
Bitcode Combined Function Summary
The combined function index/summary (thin archive) file created by the phase-2
linker step will also be bitcode. It will consist of a MODULE_BLOCK containing
only a THINLTO_BLOCK, a BLOCKINFO_BLOCK, and a VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK. The
THINLTO_BLOCK will contain all three subblocks, with the THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK
and the THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK holding the aggregated per-module ThinLTO
information. As noted earlier, it will also contain a
THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK created from the linked modules. The combined index
will exclude symbols that are undefined, duplicate (e.g. comdats) or unlikely to
benefit from importing. The THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK offsets in the
THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK records are updated to reflect the new offset into the
combined THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK, and the THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK
records are updated to include the appropriate module index into the
THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK.
Native-Wrapped ThinLTO Support
This section describes the representation of ThinLTO for native-wrapped bitcode
intermediate files. The discussion here uses ELF as an example, but should also
apply to other formats such as COFF and Mach-O [1].
Native-wrapped bitcode
There is already support in LLVM for reading native-wrapped bitcode, where the
bitcode is contained within an .llvmbc section. For ThinLTO, unlike in the
earlier bitcode-only case, the ThinLTO information is not nested within the
MODULE_BLOCK contained within the .llvmbc section. Instead, the native object
will contain a symbol table, and special sections holding the additional ThinLTO
information. These sections are the function summary section
(.llvm_thinlto_funcsum) containing the function’s bitcode offset and summary
information for importing decisions, as well as the module path string table
(.llvm_thinlto_modstrtab).
For simplicity and consistency with the bitcode-only format and interfaces, the
contents of the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab will be
encoded with bitcode. The .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab section will contain bitcode
for a single THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK. The format and contents of this block
will be identical to the equivalent block in the bitcode-only case. Similarly,
the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section will contain bitcode for a single
THINLTO_FUNCTION_SUMMARY_BLOCK. The format and contents will be identical to the
equivalent block in the bitcode-only case, however note that the bitcode offset
for the FUNCTION_BLOCK is the offset within the .llvmbc section bitcode (which
contains the function IR).
As with the symbol table in a normal object file, the symbol table for the
native-object wrapped bitcode file will hold entries for both defined and
undefined but referenced symbols. The entries for functions defined in the
module specify the location of that function’s summary via the st_shndx (index
of .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section) and st_value (bitcode offset within
.llvm_thinlto_funcsum section). The st_size field will hold the size of the
function summary entry in the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section. Note that for
functions that are deemed unlikely to benefit from importing (e.g. large and
cold), the summary data will be suppressed and the symtab entry will simply have
a zero offset and size.
The symbol’s visibility can be emitted in the st_other field which typically
holds the visibility info. If a tool such as objcopy or ld -r modifies the
symbol visibility, this change is recorded in the symbol table. The change will
be propagated to the bitcode when the backend compiles the native-wrapped
bitcode.
E.g.:
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name Type Address Offset
Size EntSize Flags Link Info Align
[ 0] NULL 0000000000000000 00000000
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0 0 0
[ 1] .shstrtab STRTAB 0000000000000000 0000024b
0000000000000059 0000000000000000 0 0 1
[ 2] .text PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 AX 0 0 16
…
[ 5] .llvmbc PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040
000000000000044c 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4
[ 6] .llvm_thinlto_funcsum PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000040
0000000000000400 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4
[ 7] .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab PROGBITS 0000000000000000 00000440
0000000000000013 0000000000000000 E 0 0 4
Symbol table '.symtab' contains 11 entries:
Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name
0: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND
1: 0000000000000000 0 FILE LOCAL DEFAULT ABS t1.c
2: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 2
3: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 4
4: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 5
5: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 6
6: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 7
7: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 8
8: 0000000000000040 40 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 6 bar
9: 0000000000000000 40 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 6 foo
10: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT UND blah
The section index value in the symtab entry for ‘foo’ are 6 and 0x0,
respectively, meaning that the function summary info for ‘foo’ can be found in
section 6 (.llvm_thinlto_funcsum) at offset 0x0. Similarly, the function summary
info for ‘bar’ can be found in .llvm_thinlto_funcsum at offset 0x40. The size
refers to the size of the corresponding function summary entry.
Native-Wrapped Combined Function Summary
The combined function summary (thin archive) file created by the phase-2 linker
step can also be in native object format. It will contain the symbol table, and
just the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab sections, combined
across all of the linked modules. The combined symbol table,
.llvm_thinlto_funcsum and .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab sections will exclude symbols
that are undefined, duplicate (e.g. comdats) or unlikely to benefit from
importing. The offsets in the symbol table are updated to reflect the new offset
into the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum section, and the .llvm_thinlto_funcsum updated to
include the appropriate module path index in the new .llvm_thinlto_modstrtab
section.
________________
[1] COFF and Mach-O symbol tables have similar fields. The main differences are
that Mach-O symbol table entries don’t contain the symbol size, so the size is
deduced by looking for the next symbol start address, and COFF holds the symbol
sizes in auxiliary info that follows each symbol entry. See also
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.delorie.com_djgpp_doc_coff_symtab.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=7isNRRG84wFLU9ztTKYIXpp2tc_k91DwDH6bOpuOEsQ&e=>
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/coff/symtab.html and
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developer.apple.com_library_mac_documentation_DeveloperTools_Conceptual_MachORuntime_index.html-23__apple-5Fref_c_tag_nlist-5F64&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=4XqKCNsoQF6E-9s1t50vPGyEPPRQOhjzbY8iGykl-vU&e=>
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/MachORuntime/index.html#//apple_ref/c/tag/nlist_64
--
Teresa Johnson |
Software Engineer |
<mailto:tejohnson at google.com> tejohnson at google.com |
<tel:408-460-2413> 408-460-2413
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
<http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
--
Teresa Johnson |
Software Engineer |
<mailto:tejohnson at google.com> tejohnson at google.com |
408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160105/12e453c4/attachment-0001.html>