thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties [Jul 2019]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Son Tuan VU via llvm-dev

2019-Jul-24 16:35 UTC

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with these
properties. However, what would be an object whose address is potentially
known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global variable?

So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could access
to:
- only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified,
- its arguments and the global variable as well if Intr*Mem (other than
IntrNoMem) specified.

Please tell me if I'm correct or not!

Thanks again,



On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 17:27 Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
wrote:
> Hi Son Tuan Vu,
>
> if not restricted by *writeonly*, *readonly*, or *readnone* (basically), a
> call can access any object for which the
> callee could potentially know the address. That means, if the address of
> an object cannot be known to the callee,
> it cannot access that object. An example is given below. Thus, a dead
> store can be eliminated if the memory cannot
> be read by any subsequent operation. If you think there is a bug, could
> you provide a reproducer?
>
> Example:
>
> void unknown();
> void foo() {
>    int *A = malloc(100 * sizeof(A[0]));
>    int B[100];
>   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
>     A[i] = B[i] = i;
>
>   // The addresses/objects A and B are not known to the unknown function
> and the stores above can be removed.
>   unknown();
>
>   free(A);
> }
>
> I hope this helps,
>   Johannes
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Son
Tuan VU
> via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 08:20
> To: llvm-devmemory
> Subject: [llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties
>
> Hello,
>
> According to include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td, InstrReadMem property
> indicates that the intrinsic only reads from and does not write to memory.
>
> Does this mean that it can read anywhere in the memory? Because we already
> have 'InstrArgMemOnly' for intrinsics which only access memory that
its
> argument(s) point(s) to.
>
> If 'InstrReadMem' really means read from anywhere in the memory,
this
> should imply that,  if there's an intrinsic having this property
*after* a
> dead store, the latter should not be eliminated by optimizations?
>
> This is not the current behavior of LLVM though, so it seems that my
> guesses are wrong... But at least, can someone show me the mistake here?
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Son Tuan Vu
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190724/15dc0ee5/attachment.html>

Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev

2019-Jul-24 16:47 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

You are on the right track. Addresses could get exposed in various ways,
a probably non-exclusive list is:
 - passed as arguments
 - communicated through a global
 - via I/O, or more general, system calls. This includes all forms of
   synchronization, e.g., inter-lane communication.
 - transitively passed by any of the means above, e.g., the address of a
   pointer to the object could be exposed.

So if we take the example below and add:
  bar(&A[50]);
just before the call to unknown, we have to assume A is known to unknown
now, at least if we do not have information about bar that would suggest
otherwise.


On 07/24, Son Tuan VU wrote:> Hi Johannes,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with these
> properties. However, what would be an object whose address is potentially
> known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global variable?
> 
> So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could access
> to:
> - only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified,
> - its arguments and the global variable as well if Intr*Mem (other than
> IntrNoMem) specified.
> 
> Please tell me if I'm correct or not!
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 17:27 Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
wrote:
> 
> > Hi Son Tuan Vu,
> >
> > if not restricted by *writeonly*, *readonly*, or *readnone*
(basically), a
> > call can access any object for which the
> > callee could potentially know the address. That means, if the address
of
> > an object cannot be known to the callee,
> > it cannot access that object. An example is given below. Thus, a dead
> > store can be eliminated if the memory cannot
> > be read by any subsequent operation. If you think there is a bug,
could
> > you provide a reproducer?
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > void unknown();
> > void foo() {
> >    int *A = malloc(100 * sizeof(A[0]));
> >    int B[100];
> >   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> >     A[i] = B[i] = i;
> >
> >   // The addresses/objects A and B are not known to the unknown
function
> > and the stores above can be removed.
> >   unknown();
> >
> >   free(A);
> > }
> >
> > I hope this helps,
> >   Johannes
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of
Son Tuan VU
> > via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 08:20
> > To: llvm-devmemory
> > Subject: [llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > According to include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td, InstrReadMem property
> > indicates that the intrinsic only reads from and does not write to
memory.
> >
> > Does this mean that it can read anywhere in the memory? Because we
already
> > have 'InstrArgMemOnly' for intrinsics which only access memory
that its
> > argument(s) point(s) to.
> >
> > If 'InstrReadMem' really means read from anywhere in the
memory, this
> > should imply that,  if there's an intrinsic having this property
*after* a
> > dead store, the latter should not be eliminated by optimizations?
> >
> > This is not the current behavior of LLVM though, so it seems that my
> > guesses are wrong... But at least, can someone show me the mistake
here?
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> >
> > Son Tuan Vu
> >
-- 

Johannes Doerfert
Researcher

Argonne National Laboratory
Lemont, IL 60439, USA

jdoerfert at anl.gov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190724/652d52cc/attachment.sig>

Son Tuan VU via llvm-dev

2019-Jul-24 22:51 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

Ok, now I think I've found a bug:

Consider this C code:
void bar(int b) {
  int a[10];
  memset(a, b, 10);
}

which generates this IR code:
define dso_local void @bar(i32 %b) #0 {
entry:
  %b.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %a = alloca [10 x i32], align 16
  store i32 %b, i32* %b.addr, align 4
  %arraydecay = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %a, i64 0,
i64 0
  %0 = bitcast i32* %arraydecay to i8*
  %1 = load i32, i32* %b.addr, align 4
  %2 = trunc i32 %1 to i8
  call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* align 16 %0, i8 %2, i64 10, i1 false)
  ret void
}

Now I have a pass that inserts an intrinsic with IntrReadMem into the IR:
define dso_local void @bar(i32 %b) #0 {
entry:
  %b.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %a = alloca [10 x i32], align 16
  store i32 %b, i32* %b.addr, align 4
  %arraydecay = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %a, i64 0,
i64 0
  %0 = bitcast i32* %arraydecay to i8*
  %1 = load i32, i32* %b.addr, align 4
  %2 = trunc i32 %1 to i8
  call void @llvm.memset.p0i8.i64(i8* align 16 %0, i8 %2, i64 10, i1 false)
*  tail call void @mem_read_test(i8* %0)*
  ret void
}

; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly
declare void @mem_read_test(i8*) #2

However, the call to memset() still got optimized away by DSE. What am I
missing here? Or this is indeed a bug in DSE?

Son Tuan Vu


On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:47 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>
wrote:
> You are on the right track. Addresses could get exposed in various ways,
> a probably non-exclusive list is:
>  - passed as arguments
>  - communicated through a global
>  - via I/O, or more general, system calls. This includes all forms of
>    synchronization, e.g., inter-lane communication.
>  - transitively passed by any of the means above, e.g., the address of a
>    pointer to the object could be exposed.
>
> So if we take the example below and add:
>   bar(&A[50]);
> just before the call to unknown, we have to assume A is known to unknown
> now, at least if we do not have information about bar that would suggest
> otherwise.
>
>
> On 07/24, Son Tuan VU wrote:
> > Hi Johannes,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with
these
> > properties. However, what would be an object whose address is
potentially
> > known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global
variable?
> >
> > So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could
access
> > to:
> > - only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified,
> > - its arguments and the global variable as well if Intr*Mem (other
than
> > IntrNoMem) specified.
> >
> > Please tell me if I'm correct or not!
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 17:27 Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at
anl.gov>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Son Tuan Vu,
> > >
> > > if not restricted by *writeonly*, *readonly*, or *readnone*
> (basically), a
> > > call can access any object for which the
> > > callee could potentially know the address. That means, if the
address
> of
> > > an object cannot be known to the callee,
> > > it cannot access that object. An example is given below. Thus, a
dead
> > > store can be eliminated if the memory cannot
> > > be read by any subsequent operation. If you think there is a bug,
could
> > > you provide a reproducer?
> > >
> > > Example:
> > >
> > > void unknown();
> > > void foo() {
> > >    int *A = malloc(100 * sizeof(A[0]));
> > >    int B[100];
> > >   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > >     A[i] = B[i] = i;
> > >
> > >   // The addresses/objects A and B are not known to the unknown
> function
> > > and the stores above can be removed.
> > >   unknown();
> > >
> > >   free(A);
> > > }
> > >
> > > I hope this helps,
> > >   Johannes
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on
behalf of Son
> Tuan VU
> > > via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 08:20
> > > To: llvm-devmemory
> > > Subject: [llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > According to include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td, InstrReadMem property
> > > indicates that the intrinsic only reads from and does not write
to
> memory.
> > >
> > > Does this mean that it can read anywhere in the memory? Because
we
> already
> > > have 'InstrArgMemOnly' for intrinsics which only access
memory that its
> > > argument(s) point(s) to.
> > >
> > > If 'InstrReadMem' really means read from anywhere in the
memory, this
> > > should imply that,  if there's an intrinsic having this
property
> *after* a
> > > dead store, the latter should not be eliminated by optimizations?
> > >
> > > This is not the current behavior of LLVM though, so it seems that
my
> > > guesses are wrong... But at least, can someone show me the
mistake
> here?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time,
> > >
> > > Son Tuan Vu
> > >
>
> --
>
> Johannes Doerfert
> Researcher
>
> Argonne National Laboratory
> Lemont, IL 60439, USA
>
> jdoerfert at anl.gov
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190725/3584eea6/attachment.html>

Reasonably Related Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

llvm dev - Jul 2019 - Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

[llvm-dev] Intrinsics InstrReadMem memory properties

Reasonably Related Threads