llvm dev - Jun 2020 - [Debuginfo][DWARF][LLD] Remove obsolete debug info in lld.

Hi David, please find my comments inside:

>>>Broad question: Do you have any specific motivation/users/etc in
implementing this (if you can speak about it)?
>>> - it might help motivate the work, understand what tradeoffs might
be suitable for you/your users, etc.
>>There are two general requirements:
>> 1) Remove (or clean) invalid debug info.
>
>Perhaps a simpler direct solution for your immediate needs might be a much
narrower,
>and more efficient linker-DWARF-awareness feature:
>
> With DWARFv5, rnglists present an opportunity for a DWARF linker to rewrite
the ranges
> without parsing the rest of the DWARF. /technically/ this isn't
guaranteed - rnglist entries
> can be referenced either directly, or by index. If all rnglists are
referenced by index, then
> a linker could parse only the debug_rnglists section and rewrite ranges to
remove any
> address ranges that refer to optimized-out code.
> This would only be correct for rnglists that had no direct references to
them (that only were
> referenced via the indexes) - but we could either implement it with that
assumption, or could
> add an LLVM extension attribute on the CU that would say "I promise I
only referenced rnglists
> via rnglistx forms/indexes). If this DWARF-aware linking would have to read
the CU DIE (not
> all the other DIEs) it /could/ also then rewrite high/low_pc if the CU
wasn't using ranges...
> but that wouldn't come up in the function-removal case, because then
you'd have ranges anyway,
> so no need for that.
> Such a DWARF-aware rnglist linking could also simplify rnglists, in cases
where functions
> ended up being laid out next to each other, the linker could coalesce their
ranges together.
> I imagine this could be implemented with very little overhead to linking,
especially compared
> to the overhead of full DWARF-aware linking.
>Though none of this fixes Split DWARF, where the linker doesn't get a
chance to see the
> addresses being used - but if you only want/need the CU-level ranges to be
correct, this
> might be a viable fix, and quite efficient.
Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of invalid
debug info
and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for D74169
then we
will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in
upstream?


>> 2) Optimize the DWARF size.
> Do your users care much about this? I imagine if they had significant DWARF
size issues,
> they'd have significant link time issues and the kind of cost to link
time this feature has would
> be prohibitive - but perhaps they're sharing linked binaries much more
often than they're
> actually performing linking.
Yes, they do. They also have significant link-time issues.
So current performance results of D74169 are not very acceptable.
We hope to improve it.

>>The specifics which our users have:
>>  - embedded platform which uses 0 as start of .text section.
>>  - custom toolset which does not support all features yet(f.e. split
dwarf).
>>  - tolerant of the link-time increase.
>>  - need a useful way to share debug builds.
> Sharing two files (executable and dwp) is significantly less useful than
sharing one file?
Probably not significantly, but yes, it looks less useful comparing to D74169.
Having only two files (executable and .dwp) looks significantly better than
having executable and multiple .dwo files.
Having only one file(executable) with minimal size looks better than the two
files with a bigger size.

clang compiled with -gsplitdwarf takes 0.9G for executable and 0.9G for .dwp.
clang compiled with -gc-debuginfo takes only 0.76G for single executable.

>>For the first point: we have a problem "Overlapping address ranges
starting from 0"(D59553).
>>We use custom solution, but the general solution like D74169 would be
better here.
> If CU ranges are the only ones that need fixing, then I think the above
solution might be as
> good/better - if more than CU ranges need fixing, then I think we might
want to start talking about
> how to fix DWARF itself (split and non-split) to signal certain addresses
point to dead code with a
> specific blessed value that linkers would need to implement - because with
Split DWARF there's
> no way to solve the non-CU addresses at the linker.
I think the worthful solution for that signal value would be LowPC > HighPC.
That does not require additional bits in DWARF.
It would be natural to skip such address ranges since they explicitly marked as
invalid.
It could be implemented in a linker very easily. Probably, it would make sense
to describe that
usage in DWARF standard.

As to the addresses which are not seen by the linker(since they are in .dwo
files) - yes,
they need to have another solution. Could you show an example of such a case,
please?



>>>2. Support of type units.
>>>
>>>>  That could be implemented further.
>>>Enabling type units increases object size to make it easier to
deduplicate at link time by a DWARF-unaware
>>>linker. With a DWARF aware linker it'd be generally desirable
not to have to add that object size overhead to
>>>get the linking improvements.
>>
>>But, DWARFLinker should adequately work with type units since they are
already implemented.
> Maybe - it'd be nice & all, but I don't think it's an
outright necessity - if someone knows they're using
> a DWARF-aware linker, they'd probably not use type units in their
object files. It's possible someone
> doesn't know for sure & maybe they have pre-canned debug object
files from someone else, etc.
I see.
>>Another thing is that the idea behind type units has the potential to
help Dwarf-aware linker to work faster.
>>Currently, DWARFLinker analyzes context to understand whether types are
the same or not.
>When you say "analyzes context" what do you mean? Usually I'd
take that to mean
> "looks at things outside the type itself - like what namespace
it's in, etc" - which, yes,
> it should do that, but it doesn't seem very expensive to do. But I
guess you actually
> mean something about doing structural equivalence in some way, looking at
things inside the type?
I think it could be useful for both cases. Currently, dsymutil does only first
thing
(look at type name, namespace name, etc..) and does not do the second thing
(doing structural equivalence). Analyzing type names is currently quite
expensive
(the only search in string pool takes ~10 sec from 70 sec of overall time).
That is expensive because of many things should be done to work with strings:
parse DWARF, search and resolve relocations, compute a hash for strings,
put data into a string pool, create a fully qualified name(like
namespace::function::name).
It looks like it could be optimized and finally require less time, but it still
would be a noticeable
part of the overall time.

If dsymutil starts to check for the structural equivalence, then the process
would be even more slowly.
So, If instead of comparing types structure, there would be checked single
hash-id - then this process
would also be faster.

Thus I think using hash-id to compare types would allow to make current
implementation faster and would
allow handling incomplete types by DWARFLinker without massive performance
degradation also.
>> But the context is known when types are generated. So, no need to spent
the time analyzing it.
>> If types could be compared without analyzing context, then Dwarf-aware
linker would work faster.
>> That is just an idea(not for immediate implementation): If types would
be stored in some "type table"
>> (instead of COMDAT section group) and could be accessed through
hash-id(like type units
>> - then it would be the solution requiring fewer bits to store but
allowing to compare types
>> by hash-id(not analysing context).
>> In this case, size increasing would be small. And processing time could
be done faster.
>>
>> this is just an idea and could be discussed separately from the problem
of integrating of D74169.
>> >> 6. -flto=thin
>> >>    That problem was described in this review
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54747#1503720. It also exists in
>> >> current DWARFLinker/dsymutil implementation. I think that
problem should be discussed more: it could
>> >> probably be fixed by avoiding generation of such incomplete
declaration during thinlto,
>> >> That would be costly to produce extra/redundant debug info in
ThinLTO - actually ThinLTO could be doing
>> >> more to reduce that redundancy early on (actually removing
definitions from some llvm Modules if the type
>> >> definition is known to exist in another Module, etc)
>> >I don't know if it's a problem since that patch was
reverted.
>>
>> Yes. That patch was reverted, but this patch(D74169) has the same
problem.
>> if D74169 would be applied and --gc-debuginfo used then structure type
>> definition would be removed.
>> DWARFLinker could handle that case - "removing definitions from
some llvm Modules if the type
>> definition is known to exist in another Module".
>> i.e. DWARFLinker could replace the declaration with the definition.
>> But that problem could be more easily resolved when debug info is
generated(probably without
>> significant increase of debug info size):
>> Here we have:
>> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x0000000b) - compile unit containing concrete
instance for function "f".
>> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073) - compile unit containing abstract
instance root for function "f".
>> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1) - compile unit containing function
"f" definition.
>> Code for function "f" was deleted. gc-debuginfo deletes
compile unit DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1)
>> containing "f" definition (since there is no corresponding
code). But it has structure "Foo" definition
>> DW_TAG_structure_type(0x0000011e) referenced from
DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073)
>> by declaration DW_TAG_structure_type(0x000000ae). That declaration is
exactly the case when definition
>> was removed by thinlto and replaced with declaration.
>> Would it cost too much if type definition would not be replaced with
declaration for "abstract instance root"?
>> The number of concrete instances is bigger than number of abstract
instance roots.
>> Probably, it would not be too costly to leave definition in abstract
instance root?
>> Alternatively, Would it cost too much if type definition would not be
replaced with declaration when
>> declaration references type from not used function? (lto could
understand that concrete function is not used).
>I don't follow this example - could you provide a small concrete test
case I could reproduce?
I would provide a test case if necessary. But it looks like this issue is
finally clear, and you already commented on that.
> Oh, I guess this is happening perhaps because ThinLTO can't know for
sure that a standalone
> definition of 'f' won't be needed - so it produces one in case
one of the inlining opportunities
> doesn't end up inlining. Then it turns out all calls got inlined, so
the external definition wasn't needed.
> Oh, you're suggesting that these 3 CUs got emitted into one object file
during LTO, but that DWARFLinker
> drops a CU without any code in it - even though... So far as I know, in
LTO, LLVM directly references
> types across units if the CUs are all emitted in the same object file. (and
if they weren't in the same
> object file - then the abstract_origin couldn't be pointing cross-CU).
> I guess some basic things to say:
> With ThinLTO, the concrete/standalone function definition is emitted in
case some call sites don't end up
> being inlined. So we know it'll be emitted (but might not be needed by
the actual linker)
> ANy number of inline calls might exist - but we shouldn't put the type
information into those, because
> they aren't guaranteed to emit it (if the inline function gets
optimized away, there would be nothing to
> enforce the type being emitted) - and even if we forced the type
information to be emitted into one
> object file that has an inline copy of the function - there's no
guarantee that object file will get linked in either.
> So, no, I don't think there's much we can do to keep the size of
object files down, while guaranteeing
> the type information will be emitted with the usual linker semantics.
Then dsymutil/DWARFLinker could be changed to handle that(though it would
probably be not very efficient).
If thinlto would understand that function is not used finally(and then must not
contain referenced type definition),
then this situation could be handled more effectively.

Thank you, Alexey.





_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://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/20200519/0364f869/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:17 AM Alexey Lapshin
<alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David, please find my comments inside:
>
>
> >>>Broad question: Do you have any specific motivation/users/etc
in implementing this (if you can speak about it)?
>
> >>> - it might help motivate the work, understand what tradeoffs
might be suitable for you/your users, etc.
>
> >>There are two general requirements:
> >> 1) Remove (or clean) invalid debug info.
>
> >
> >Perhaps a simpler direct solution for your immediate needs might be a
much narrower,
> >and more efficient linker-DWARF-awareness feature:
> >
> > With DWARFv5, rnglists present an opportunity for a DWARF linker to
rewrite the ranges
> > without parsing the rest of the DWARF. /technically/ this isn't
guaranteed - rnglist entries
> > can be referenced either directly, or by index. If all rnglists are
referenced by index, then
> > a linker could parse only the debug_rnglists section and rewrite
ranges to remove any
> > address ranges that refer to optimized-out code.
> >
> > This would only be correct for rnglists that had no direct references
to them (that only were
> > referenced via the indexes) - but we could either implement it with
that assumption, or could
> > add an LLVM extension attribute on the CU that would say "I
promise I only referenced rnglists
> > via rnglistx forms/indexes). If this DWARF-aware linking would have to
read the CU DIE (not
> > all the other DIEs) it /could/ also then rewrite high/low_pc if the CU
wasn't using ranges...
> > but that wouldn't come up in the function-removal case, because
then you'd have ranges anyway,
> > so no need for that.
> >
> > Such a DWARF-aware rnglist linking could also simplify rnglists, in
cases where functions
> > ended up being laid out next to each other, the linker could coalesce
their ranges together.
> >
> > I imagine this could be implemented with very little overhead to
linking, especially compared
> > to the overhead of full DWARF-aware linking.
> >
> >Though none of this fixes Split DWARF, where the linker doesn't get
a chance to see the
> > addresses being used - but if you only want/need the CU-level ranges
to be correct, this
> > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient.
>
> Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem of
invalid debug info
> and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results for
D74169 then we
> will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this solution in
upstream?
A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream -
again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it
would save enough space to be particularly valuable beyond the
correctness issue - and it doesn't completely solve the correctness
issue for zero-address usage or low-address usage (because you could
still have overlapping subprograms inside a CU - so if you were
symbolizing you could use the correct rnglist to filter, but then go
look inside the CU only to find two subprograms that had that address
& not know which one was the correct one an which one was the
discarded one).

rnglist rewriting might be easy enough to prototype - but depends what
you want to spend your time on, I know this whole issue has been a
huge investment of your time already - but maybe this recent
revitalization of the conversation around having an explicit value in
the linker might be sufficient to address everyone's needs... *fingers
crossed*)

> >> 2) Optimize the DWARF size.
>
>
> > Do your users care much about this? I imagine if they had significant
DWARF size issues,
> > they'd have significant link time issues and the kind of cost to
link time this feature has would
> > be prohibitive - but perhaps they're sharing linked binaries much
more often than they're
> > actually performing linking.
>
> Yes, they do. They also have significant link-time issues.
> So current performance results of D74169 are not very acceptable.
> We hope to improve it.
>
>
>
> >>The specifics which our users have:
> >>  - embedded platform which uses 0 as start of .text section.
> >>  - custom toolset which does not support all features yet(f.e.
split dwarf).
> >>  - tolerant of the link-time increase.
> >>  - need a useful way to share debug builds.
>
>
> > Sharing two files (executable and dwp) is significantly less useful
than sharing one file?
>
> Probably not significantly, but yes, it looks less useful comparing to
D74169.
> Having only two files (executable and .dwp) looks significantly better than
having executable and multiple .dwo files.
> Having only one file(executable) with minimal size looks better than the
two files with a bigger size.
>
> clang compiled with -gsplitdwarf takes 0.9G for executable and 0.9G for
.dwp.
> clang compiled with -gc-debuginfo takes only 0.76G for single executable.
>
>
>
> >>For the first point: we have a problem "Overlapping address
ranges starting from 0"(D59553).
>
> >>We use custom solution, but the general solution like D74169 would
be better here.
>
>
> > If CU ranges are the only ones that need fixing, then I think the
above solution might be as
> > good/better - if more than CU ranges need fixing, then I think we
might want to start talking about
> > how to fix DWARF itself (split and non-split) to signal certain
addresses point to dead code with a
> > specific blessed value that linkers would need to implement - because
with Split DWARF there's
> > no way to solve the non-CU addresses at the linker.
>
> I think the worthful solution for that signal value would be LowPC >
HighPC.
> That does not require additional bits in DWARF.
> It would be natural to skip such address ranges since they explicitly
marked as invalid.
> It could be implemented in a linker very easily. Probably, it would make
sense to describe that
> usage in DWARF standard.
>
> As to the addresses which are not seen by the linker(since they are in .dwo
files) - yes,
> they need to have another solution. Could you show an example of such a
case, please?
>
>
>
> >>>2. Support of type units.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>  That could be implemented further.
>
> >>>Enabling type units increases object size to make it easier to
deduplicate at link time by a DWARF-unaware
>
> >>>linker. With a DWARF aware linker it'd be generally
desirable not to have to add that object size overhead to
>
> >>>get the linking improvements.
>
> >>
>
> >>But, DWARFLinker should adequately work with type units since they
are already implemented.
>
>
> > Maybe - it'd be nice & all, but I don't think it's an
outright necessity - if someone knows they're using
> > a DWARF-aware linker, they'd probably not use type units in their
object files. It's possible someone
> > doesn't know for sure & maybe they have pre-canned debug
object files from someone else, etc.
>
> I see.
>
> >>Another thing is that the idea behind type units has the potential
to help Dwarf-aware linker to work faster.
>
> >>Currently, DWARFLinker analyzes context to understand whether types
are the same or not.
>
>
> >When you say "analyzes context" what do you mean? Usually
I'd take that to mean
> > "looks at things outside the type itself - like what namespace
it's in, etc" - which, yes,
> > it should do that, but it doesn't seem very expensive to do. But I
guess you actually
> > mean something about doing structural equivalence in some way, looking
at things inside the type?
>
> I think it could be useful for both cases. Currently, dsymutil does only
first thing
> (look at type name, namespace name, etc..) and does not do the second thing
> (doing structural equivalence). Analyzing type names is currently quite
expensive
> (the only search in string pool takes ~10 sec from 70 sec of overall time).
> That is expensive because of many things should be done to work with
strings:
> parse DWARF, search and resolve relocations, compute a hash for strings,
> put data into a string pool, create a fully qualified name(like
namespace::function::name).
> It looks like it could be optimized and finally require less time, but it
still would be a noticeable
> part of the overall time.
>
> If dsymutil starts to check for the structural equivalence, then the
process would be even more slowly.
> So, If instead of comparing types structure, there would be checked single
hash-id - then this process
> would also be faster.
>
> Thus I think using hash-id to compare types would allow to make current
implementation faster and would
> allow handling incomplete types by DWARFLinker without massive performance
degradation also.
>
> >> But the context is known when types are generated. So, no need to
spent the time analyzing it.
>
> >> If types could be compared without analyzing context, then
Dwarf-aware linker would work faster.
>
> >> That is just an idea(not for immediate implementation): If types
would be stored in some "type table"
>
> >> (instead of COMDAT section group) and could be accessed through
hash-id(like type units
>
> >> - then it would be the solution requiring fewer bits to store but
allowing to compare types
>
> >> by hash-id(not analysing context).
> >> In this case, size increasing would be small. And processing time
could be done faster.
> >>
> >> this is just an idea and could be discussed separately from the
problem of integrating of D74169.
>
> >> >> 6. -flto=thin
>
> >> >>    That problem was described in this review
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54747#1503720. It also exists in
>
> >> >> current DWARFLinker/dsymutil implementation. I think that
problem should be discussed more: it could
>
> >> >> probably be fixed by avoiding generation of such
incomplete declaration during thinlto,
>
> >> >> That would be costly to produce extra/redundant debug
info in ThinLTO - actually ThinLTO could be doing
>
> >> >> more to reduce that redundancy early on (actually
removing definitions from some llvm Modules if the type
>
> >> >> definition is known to exist in another Module, etc)
> >> >I don't know if it's a problem since that patch was
reverted.
>
> >>
>
> >> Yes. That patch was reverted, but this patch(D74169) has the same
problem.
>
> >> if D74169 would be applied and --gc-debuginfo used then structure
type
> >> definition would be removed.
>
> >> DWARFLinker could handle that case - "removing definitions
from some llvm Modules if the type
> >> definition is known to exist in another Module".
> >> i.e. DWARFLinker could replace the declaration with the
definition.
>
> >> But that problem could be more easily resolved when debug info is
generated(probably without
> >> significant increase of debug info size):
>
> >> Here we have:
>
> >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x0000000b) - compile unit containing concrete
instance for function "f".
> >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073) - compile unit containing abstract
instance root for function "f".
> >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1) - compile unit containing function
"f" definition.
>
> >> Code for function "f" was deleted. gc-debuginfo deletes
compile unit DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1)
> >> containing "f" definition (since there is no
corresponding code). But it has structure "Foo" definition
> >> DW_TAG_structure_type(0x0000011e) referenced from
DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073)
> >> by declaration DW_TAG_structure_type(0x000000ae). That declaration
is exactly the case when definition
> >> was removed by thinlto and replaced with declaration.
>
> >> Would it cost too much if type definition would not be replaced
with declaration for "abstract instance root"?
> >> The number of concrete instances is bigger than number of abstract
instance roots.
> >> Probably, it would not be too costly to leave definition in
abstract instance root?
>
>
>
> >> Alternatively, Would it cost too much if type definition would not
be replaced with declaration when
> >> declaration references type from not used function? (lto could
understand that concrete function is not used).
>
>
> >I don't follow this example - could you provide a small concrete
test case I could reproduce?
>
> I would provide a test case if necessary. But it looks like this issue is
finally clear, and you already commented on that.
>
> > Oh, I guess this is happening perhaps because ThinLTO can't know
for sure that a standalone
> > definition of 'f' won't be needed - so it produces one in
case one of the inlining opportunities
> > doesn't end up inlining. Then it turns out all calls got inlined,
so the external definition wasn't needed.
>
> > Oh, you're suggesting that these 3 CUs got emitted into one object
file during LTO, but that DWARFLinker
> > drops a CU without any code in it - even though... So far as I know,
in LTO, LLVM directly references
> > types across units if the CUs are all emitted in the same object file.
(and if they weren't in the same
> > object file - then the abstract_origin couldn't be pointing
cross-CU).
>
> > I guess some basic things to say:
>
> > With ThinLTO, the concrete/standalone function definition is emitted
in case some call sites don't end up
> > being inlined. So we know it'll be emitted (but might not be
needed by the actual linker)
> > ANy number of inline calls might exist - but we shouldn't put the
type information into those, because
> > they aren't guaranteed to emit it (if the inline function gets
optimized away, there would be nothing to
> > enforce the type being emitted) - and even if we forced the type
information to be emitted into one
> > object file that has an inline copy of the function - there's no
guarantee that object file will get linked in either.
>
> > So, no, I don't think there's much we can do to keep the size
of object files down, while guaranteeing
> > the type information will be emitted with the usual linker semantics.
>
> Then dsymutil/DWARFLinker could be changed to handle that(though it would
probably be not very efficient).
> If thinlto would understand that function is not used finally(and then must
not contain referenced type definition),
> then this situation could be handled more effectively.
>
> Thank you, Alexey.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

It makes me sad that the linker (via a library or otherwise) has to be
"DWARF-aware" to be able to effectively handle --gc-sections, COMDATs,
--icf etc for debug info, without leaving large blocks of data kicking
around.

The patching to -1 (or equivalent) is probably a good lightweight solution
(though I'd love it if it could be done based on section type in the future
rather than section name, but that's probably outside the realm of DWARF),
as it requires only minimal understanding in the linker, but anything
beyond that seems to be complicated logic that is mostly due to the
structure of DWARF. Patching to -1 does feel a bit like a sticking
plaster/band aid to patch over the issue rather than properly solving it
too - there will still be debug data (potentially significant amounts in
COMDAT-heavy objects) that the linker has to write and the debugger has to
somehow know how to skip (even if it knows that -1 is special-case due to
the standard being updated, it needs to get as far as the -1), which is all
wasted effort.

We've already seen from Alexey's prototyping, and from our own
experiences
with the Sony proprietary linker (which tried to rewrite .debug_line only)
that deconstructing the DWARF so that it can be more optimally reassembled
at link time is slow going, and will probably inevitably be however much
effort is put into optimising it. For a start, given the current standards,
it's impossible to know how to deconstruct it without having to parse vast
amounts of DWARF, which is typically going to mean a lot more parsing work
than the linker would normally have to deal with. Additionally, much of
this parsing work is wasted effort, since it seems unlikely in many links
that large amounts of the DWARF will be redundant. Having an option to
opt-in doesn't help much there, since it just means the logic exists
without most people using it, due to it not being good enough, or
potentially they don't even know it exists.

I don't have particularly concrete suggestions as to how to solve the
structural problems with DWARF at this point. The only thing that seems
obvious to me is a more "blessed" approach to fragmentation of
sections,
similar to what I tried with my prototype mentioned earlier in the thread,
although we'd need to figure out the previously stated performance issues.
Other ideas might tie into this, like somehow sharing the various table
headers a bit like CIEs in .eh_frame that could be merged by the linker -
each object could have separate table header sections, which are referenced
by the individual .debug_* blocks, which in turn are one per function/data
piece and easily discardable/merged by the linker.

Just some thoughts.

James

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 19:24, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:17 AM Alexey Lapshin
> <alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi David, please find my comments inside:
> >
> >
> > >>>Broad question: Do you have any specific
motivation/users/etc in
> implementing this (if you can speak about it)?
> >
> > >>> - it might help motivate the work, understand what
tradeoffs might
> be suitable for you/your users, etc.
> >
> > >>There are two general requirements:
> > >> 1) Remove (or clean) invalid debug info.
> >
> > >
> > >Perhaps a simpler direct solution for your immediate needs might
be a
> much narrower,
> > >and more efficient linker-DWARF-awareness feature:
> > >
> > > With DWARFv5, rnglists present an opportunity for a DWARF linker
to
> rewrite the ranges
> > > without parsing the rest of the DWARF. /technically/ this
isn't
> guaranteed - rnglist entries
> > > can be referenced either directly, or by index. If all rnglists
are
> referenced by index, then
> > > a linker could parse only the debug_rnglists section and rewrite
> ranges to remove any
> > > address ranges that refer to optimized-out code.
> > >
> > > This would only be correct for rnglists that had no direct
references
> to them (that only were
> > > referenced via the indexes) - but we could either implement it
with
> that assumption, or could
> > > add an LLVM extension attribute on the CU that would say "I
promise I
> only referenced rnglists
> > > via rnglistx forms/indexes). If this DWARF-aware linking would
have to
> read the CU DIE (not
> > > all the other DIEs) it /could/ also then rewrite high/low_pc if
the CU
> wasn't using ranges...
> > > but that wouldn't come up in the function-removal case,
because then
> you'd have ranges anyway,
> > > so no need for that.
> > >
> > > Such a DWARF-aware rnglist linking could also simplify rnglists,
in
> cases where functions
> > > ended up being laid out next to each other, the linker could
coalesce
> their ranges together.
> > >
> > > I imagine this could be implemented with very little overhead to
> linking, especially compared
> > > to the overhead of full DWARF-aware linking.
> > >
> > >Though none of this fixes Split DWARF, where the linker
doesn't get a
> chance to see the
> > > addresses being used - but if you only want/need the CU-level
ranges
> to be correct, this
> > > might be a viable fix, and quite efficient.
> >
> > Yes, we think about that alternative. This would resolve our problem
of
> invalid debug info
> > and would work much faster. Thus, if we would not have good results
for
> D74169 then we
> > will implement it. Do you think it could be useful to have this
solution
> in upstream?
>
> A pure rnglist rewriting - I think it'd be OK to have in upstream -
> again, cost/benefit/etc would have to be weighed. I'm not sure it
> would save enough space to be particularly valuable beyond the
> correctness issue - and it doesn't completely solve the correctness
> issue for zero-address usage or low-address usage (because you could
> still have overlapping subprograms inside a CU - so if you were
> symbolizing you could use the correct rnglist to filter, but then go
> look inside the CU only to find two subprograms that had that address
> & not know which one was the correct one an which one was the
> discarded one).
>
> rnglist rewriting might be easy enough to prototype - but depends what
> you want to spend your time on, I know this whole issue has been a
> huge investment of your time already - but maybe this recent
> revitalization of the conversation around having an explicit value in
> the linker might be sufficient to address everyone's needs... *fingers
> crossed*)
>
>
> > >> 2) Optimize the DWARF size.
> >
> >
> > > Do your users care much about this? I imagine if they had
significant
> DWARF size issues,
> > > they'd have significant link time issues and the kind of cost
to link
> time this feature has would
> > > be prohibitive - but perhaps they're sharing linked binaries
much more
> often than they're
> > > actually performing linking.
> >
> > Yes, they do. They also have significant link-time issues.
> > So current performance results of D74169 are not very acceptable.
> > We hope to improve it.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>The specifics which our users have:
> > >>  - embedded platform which uses 0 as start of .text section.
> > >>  - custom toolset which does not support all features
yet(f.e. split
> dwarf).
> > >>  - tolerant of the link-time increase.
> > >>  - need a useful way to share debug builds.
> >
> >
> > > Sharing two files (executable and dwp) is significantly less
useful
> than sharing one file?
> >
> > Probably not significantly, but yes, it looks less useful comparing to
> D74169.
> > Having only two files (executable and .dwp) looks significantly better
> than having executable and multiple .dwo files.
> > Having only one file(executable) with minimal size looks better than
the
> two files with a bigger size.
> >
> > clang compiled with -gsplitdwarf takes 0.9G for executable and 0.9G
for
> .dwp.
> > clang compiled with -gc-debuginfo takes only 0.76G for single
executable.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>For the first point: we have a problem "Overlapping
address ranges
> starting from 0"(D59553).
> >
> > >>We use custom solution, but the general solution like D74169
would be
> better here.
> >
> >
> > > If CU ranges are the only ones that need fixing, then I think the
> above solution might be as
> > > good/better - if more than CU ranges need fixing, then I think we
> might want to start talking about
> > > how to fix DWARF itself (split and non-split) to signal certain
> addresses point to dead code with a
> > > specific blessed value that linkers would need to implement -
because
> with Split DWARF there's
> > > no way to solve the non-CU addresses at the linker.
> >
> > I think the worthful solution for that signal value would be LowPC
>
> HighPC.
> > That does not require additional bits in DWARF.
> > It would be natural to skip such address ranges since they explicitly
> marked as invalid.
> > It could be implemented in a linker very easily. Probably, it would
make
> sense to describe that
> > usage in DWARF standard.
> >
> > As to the addresses which are not seen by the linker(since they are in
> .dwo files) - yes,
> > they need to have another solution. Could you show an example of such
a
> case, please?
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>2. Support of type units.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>  That could be implemented further.
> >
> > >>>Enabling type units increases object size to make it
easier to
> deduplicate at link time by a DWARF-unaware
> >
> > >>>linker. With a DWARF aware linker it'd be generally
desirable not to
> have to add that object size overhead to
> >
> > >>>get the linking improvements.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>But, DWARFLinker should adequately work with type units since
they are
> already implemented.
> >
> >
> > > Maybe - it'd be nice & all, but I don't think
it's an outright
> necessity - if someone knows they're using
> > > a DWARF-aware linker, they'd probably not use type units in
their
> object files. It's possible someone
> > > doesn't know for sure & maybe they have pre-canned debug
object files
> from someone else, etc.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > >>Another thing is that the idea behind type units has the
potential to
> help Dwarf-aware linker to work faster.
> >
> > >>Currently, DWARFLinker analyzes context to understand whether
types
> are the same or not.
> >
> >
> > >When you say "analyzes context" what do you mean?
Usually I'd take that
> to mean
> > > "looks at things outside the type itself - like what
namespace it's
> in, etc" - which, yes,
> > > it should do that, but it doesn't seem very expensive to do.
But I
> guess you actually
> > > mean something about doing structural equivalence in some way,
looking
> at things inside the type?
> >
> > I think it could be useful for both cases. Currently, dsymutil does
only
> first thing
> > (look at type name, namespace name, etc..) and does not do the second
> thing
> > (doing structural equivalence). Analyzing type names is currently
quite
> expensive
> > (the only search in string pool takes ~10 sec from 70 sec of overall
> time).
> > That is expensive because of many things should be done to work with
> strings:
> > parse DWARF, search and resolve relocations, compute a hash for
strings,
> > put data into a string pool, create a fully qualified name(like
> namespace::function::name).
> > It looks like it could be optimized and finally require less time, but
> it still would be a noticeable
> > part of the overall time.
> >
> > If dsymutil starts to check for the structural equivalence, then the
> process would be even more slowly.
> > So, If instead of comparing types structure, there would be checked
> single hash-id - then this process
> > would also be faster.
> >
> > Thus I think using hash-id to compare types would allow to make
current
> implementation faster and would
> > allow handling incomplete types by DWARFLinker without massive
> performance degradation also.
> >
> > >> But the context is known when types are generated. So, no
need to
> spent the time analyzing it.
> >
> > >> If types could be compared without analyzing context, then
> Dwarf-aware linker would work faster.
> >
> > >> That is just an idea(not for immediate implementation): If
types
> would be stored in some "type table"
> >
> > >> (instead of COMDAT section group) and could be accessed
through
> hash-id(like type units
> >
> > >> - then it would be the solution requiring fewer bits to store
but
> allowing to compare types
> >
> > >> by hash-id(not analysing context).
> > >> In this case, size increasing would be small. And processing
time
> could be done faster.
> > >>
> > >> this is just an idea and could be discussed separately from
the
> problem of integrating of D74169.
> >
> > >> >> 6. -flto=thin
> >
> > >> >>    That problem was described in this review
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D54747#1503720. It also exists in
> >
> > >> >> current DWARFLinker/dsymutil implementation. I think
that problem
> should be discussed more: it could
> >
> > >> >> probably be fixed by avoiding generation of such
incomplete
> declaration during thinlto,
> >
> > >> >> That would be costly to produce extra/redundant
debug info in
> ThinLTO - actually ThinLTO could be doing
> >
> > >> >> more to reduce that redundancy early on (actually
removing
> definitions from some llvm Modules if the type
> >
> > >> >> definition is known to exist in another Module, etc)
> > >> >I don't know if it's a problem since that patch
was reverted.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Yes. That patch was reverted, but this patch(D74169) has the
same
> problem.
> >
> > >> if D74169 would be applied and --gc-debuginfo used then
structure type
> > >> definition would be removed.
> >
> > >> DWARFLinker could handle that case - "removing
definitions from some
> llvm Modules if the type
> > >> definition is known to exist in another Module".
> > >> i.e. DWARFLinker could replace the declaration with the
definition.
> >
> > >> But that problem could be more easily resolved when debug
info is
> generated(probably without
> > >> significant increase of debug info size):
> >
> > >> Here we have:
> >
> > >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x0000000b) - compile unit containing
concrete
> instance for function "f".
> > >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073) - compile unit containing
abstract
> instance root for function "f".
> > >> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1) - compile unit containing
function
> "f" definition.
> >
> > >> Code for function "f" was deleted. gc-debuginfo
deletes compile unit
> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x000000c1)
> > >> containing "f" definition (since there is no
corresponding code). But
> it has structure "Foo" definition
> > >> DW_TAG_structure_type(0x0000011e) referenced from
> DW_TAG_compile_unit(0x00000073)
> > >> by declaration DW_TAG_structure_type(0x000000ae). That
declaration is
> exactly the case when definition
> > >> was removed by thinlto and replaced with declaration.
> >
> > >> Would it cost too much if type definition would not be
replaced with
> declaration for "abstract instance root"?
> > >> The number of concrete instances is bigger than number of
abstract
> instance roots.
> > >> Probably, it would not be too costly to leave definition in
abstract
> instance root?
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Alternatively, Would it cost too much if type definition
would not be
> replaced with declaration when
> > >> declaration references type from not used function? (lto
could
> understand that concrete function is not used).
> >
> >
> > >I don't follow this example - could you provide a small
concrete test
> case I could reproduce?
> >
> > I would provide a test case if necessary. But it looks like this issue
> is finally clear, and you already commented on that.
> >
> > > Oh, I guess this is happening perhaps because ThinLTO can't
know for
> sure that a standalone
> > > definition of 'f' won't be needed - so it produces
one in case one of
> the inlining opportunities
> > > doesn't end up inlining. Then it turns out all calls got
inlined, so
> the external definition wasn't needed.
> >
> > > Oh, you're suggesting that these 3 CUs got emitted into one
object
> file during LTO, but that DWARFLinker
> > > drops a CU without any code in it - even though... So far as I
know,
> in LTO, LLVM directly references
> > > types across units if the CUs are all emitted in the same object
file.
> (and if they weren't in the same
> > > object file - then the abstract_origin couldn't be pointing
cross-CU).
> >
> > > I guess some basic things to say:
> >
> > > With ThinLTO, the concrete/standalone function definition is
emitted
> in case some call sites don't end up
> > > being inlined. So we know it'll be emitted (but might not be
needed by
> the actual linker)
> > > ANy number of inline calls might exist - but we shouldn't put
the type
> information into those, because
> > > they aren't guaranteed to emit it (if the inline function
gets
> optimized away, there would be nothing to
> > > enforce the type being emitted) - and even if we forced the type
> information to be emitted into one
> > > object file that has an inline copy of the function - there's
no
> guarantee that object file will get linked in either.
> >
> > > So, no, I don't think there's much we can do to keep the
size of
> object files down, while guaranteeing
> > > the type information will be emitted with the usual linker
semantics.
> >
> > Then dsymutil/DWARFLinker could be changed to handle that(though it
> would probably be not very efficient).
> > If thinlto would understand that function is not used finally(and then
> must not contain referenced type definition),
> > then this situation could be handled more effectively.
> >
> > Thank you, Alexey.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200603/125d148f/attachment.html>