[llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding CPS call support

Kavon Farvardin via llvm-dev
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:22:14 -0000

> What do you think is more important for GHC: getting good or highly tunable
low-level code, or enabling mid-level optimizations such as GVN across calls? Is
GHC using LLVM more as an optimizer or as a code generator?

GHC currently uses LLVM more as a code generator; its an alternative backend.

While some optimizations may not be effective on the proposed construct, we
already produce rather horrible looking code just to use LLVM. Our function
splitting transformation that turns it into this mess is complicated to
maintain, so we'd like to remove it.

I see at least one performance benefit of not breaking the program into hundreds
of tiny functions: better code placement for I-cache locality.

~kavon


> On Apr 18, 2017, at 11:00 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
wrote:
>
> This seems to be solving a problem very similar to C++ coroutines. You
might find it helpful to read the past discussion of their design in LLVM.
>
> What do you think is more important for GHC: getting good or highly tunable
low-level code, or enabling mid-level optimizations such as GVN across calls? Is
GHC using LLVM more as an optimizer or as a code generator?
>
> If GHC's code generation pipeline leaves opportunities for LLVM
mid-level optimization, then I think you want to pursue a design similar to C++
coroutines, where we leave the control flow graph "uninverted" until
code generation. I might be making up terminology here, but I think of
transforming a program representation to continuation-passing style as
"inverting" the CFG. I'm not suggesting that you use the native
stack to store VM data, I'm just suggesting that you hide the fact that CPS
calls will really be tail calls and returns from LLVM until code generation.
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Kavon Farvardin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Summary
> ======>
> There is a need for dedicated continuation-passing style (CPS) calls in
LLVM to
> support functional languages. Herein I describe the problem and propose a
> solution. Feedback and/or tips are greatly appreciated, as our goal is to
> implement these changes so they can be merged into LLVM trunk.
>
>
> Problem
> ======>
> Implementations of functional languages like Haskell and ML (e.g., GHC and
> Manticore) use a continuation-passing style (CPS) transformation in order
to
> manage the call stack explicitly. This is done prior to generating LLVM IR,
so
> the implicit call stack within LLVM is not used for call and return.
>
> When making a non-tail call while in CPS, we initialize a stack frame for
the
> return through our own stack pointer, and then pass that stack pointer to
the
> callee when we jump to it. It is here when we run into a problem in LLVM.
>
> Consider the following CPS call to @bar and how it will return:
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> define void @foo (i8** %sp, ...) {
> someBlk:
>     ; ...
>     ; finish stack frame by writing return address
>   %retAddr = blockaddress(@foo, %retpt)
>   store i8* %retAddr, i8** %sp
>     ; jump to @bar
>   tail call void @bar(i8** %sp, ...)
>
>  retpt:                                 ; <- how can @bar
"call" %retpt?
>    %sp2 = ???
>    %val = ???
>    ; ...
>
>  }
>
>  define void @bar (i8** %sp, ...) {
>           ; perform a return
>         %retAddr0 = load i8*, i8** %sp
>         %retAddr1 = bitcast i8* %retAddr0 to void (i8**, i64)*
>         %val = bitcast i64 1 to i64
>           ; jump back to %retpt in @foo, passing %sp and %val
>         tail call void %retAddr1(i8** %sp, i64 %val)
>  }
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> There is currently no way to jump back to %retpt from another function, as
block
> addresses have restricted usage in LLVM [1]. Our main difficulty is that we
> cannot jump to a block address without knowing its calling convention,
i.e., the
> particular machine registers (or memory locations) that the block expects
> incoming values to be passed in.
>
> The workaround we have been using in GHC for LLVM is to break apart every
> function, placing the code for the continuation of each call into a new
> function. We do this only so that we can store a function pointer instead
of a
> block address to our stack. This particularly gross transformation inhibits
> optimizations in both GHC and LLVM, and we would like to remove the need
for it.
>
>
> Proposal
> =======>
> I believe the lowest-impact method of fixing this problem with LLVM is the
> following:
>
> First, we add a special 'cps' call instruction marker to be used on
non-tail
> calls. Then, we use a specialized calling convention for these non-tail
calls,
> which fix the returned values to specific locations in the machine code
[2].
>
> To help illustrate what's going on, let's rewrite the above example
using the
> proposed 'cps' call:
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> define { ... } @foo (i8** %sp, ...) {
> someBlk:
>     ; ...
>     ; finish stack frame by writing return address
>   %retAddr = blockaddress(@foo, %retpt)
>   store i8* %retAddr, i8** %sp
>     ; jump to @bar
>   %retVals = cps call ghccc {i8**, i64} @bar (i8** %sp, ...)
>   br label %retpt
>
>  retpt:
>    %sp2 = extractvalue {i8**, i64} %retVals, 0
>    %val = extractvalue {i8**, i64} %retVals, 1
>    ; ...
>
>  }
>
>  define {i8**, i64} @bar (i8** %sp, ...) {
>           ; perform a return
>         %retAddr0 = load i8*, i8** %sp
>         %retAddr1 = bitcast i8* %retAddr0 to {i8**, i64} (i8**, i64)*
>         %val = bitcast i64 1 to i64
>           ; jump back to %retpt in @foo, passing %sp and %val
>         tail call ghccc void %retAddr1(i8** %sp, i64 %val)
>
>         unreachable   ; <- ideally this would be our terminator,
>                       ; but 'unreachable' breaks TCO, so we will
>                       ; emit a ret of the struct "returned" by
the call.
>  }
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> The important point here is that the 'cps' marked call will lower
to a jump. The
> 'cps' call marker means that the callee knows how to return using
the arguments
> explicitly passed to it, i.e., the stack pointer %sp. The callee cannot use
a
> 'ret' instruction if it is 'cps' called.
>
> Either before or during 'cps' call lowering, any instructions
following the
> 'cps' call to @bar are sunk into the the block %retpt, and the
unconditional
> branch to %retpt is deleted/ignored. We include that branch to preserve
> control-flow information for LLVM IR optimization passes.
>
> The 'extractvalue' instructions are what ensure the calling
convention of
> %retpt, since the fields of the struct %retVals are returned in physical
> registers dictated by the (modified) ghccc convention. Those same physical
> registers are used by the ghccc tail call in @bar when it jumps back to
%retpt.
> So, the call & return convention of ghccc ensures that everything
matches up.
>
>
> Interaction with LLVM
> ====================>
> (1) Caller-saved Values
>
> One may wonder how this would work if there are caller-saved values of the
'cps'
> call. But, in our first example, which closely matches what CPS code looks
like,
> the call to @bar was in tail position. Thus, in the second example, there
are no
> caller-saved values for the 'cps' call to @bar, as all live values
were passed
> as arguments in the call.
>
> This caller-saved part is a bit subtle. It works fine in my experience [2]
when
> @bar is a function not visible to LLVM. My impression is that even if @bar
is
> visible to LLVM, there is still no issue, but if you can think of any
corner
> cases that would be great!
>
> (2) Inlining
>
> My gut feeling is that we cannot inline a 'cps' marked call-site
without more
> effort. This is because we might end up with something odd like this once
the
> dust settles:
>
>     %retAddr = blockaddress(@foo, %retpt)
>     %retAddr1 = bitcast i8* %retAddr to {i8**, i64} (i8**, i64)*
>     tail call ghccc %retAddr1 ( %sp, ... )
>
> We could add a pass that turns the above sequence into just an
unconditional
> branch to %retpt, using a phi-node to replace each 'extractvalue'
instruction in
> that block.
>
> I'm not sure whether inlining in LLVM is important for us yet, as we
tend to
> inline quite a lot before generating LLVM IR. I don't think this
additional fix-
> up pass would be too difficult to implement if it's desired.
>
>
> Implementation Sketch and Conclusion
> ===================================>
> My current plan is to add this special lowering of 'cps' calls
during the
> translation from LLVM IR to the SelectionDAG. I welcome any suggestions or
tips
> on the best way to approach this. An important goal for us is to merge this
into
> trunk since we do not want to bundle a special version of LLVM with GHC.
>
> Please let me know soon if you have any objections to this feature.
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Kavon
>
>
> References
> =========>
> [1] http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#blockaddress
<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#blockaddress>
> [2] http://kavon.farvard.in/papers/ml16-cwc-llvm.pdf
<http://kavon.farvard.in/papers/ml16-cwc-llvm.pdf>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170419/f557071f/attachment.html>