similar to: FYI: Relocating vector of pointers

TLDR: a proposal to add GC-parseable lowering to element atomic memcpy/memmove instrinsics controlled by a new "requires-statepoint” call attribute. Currently llvm.{memcpy|memmove}.element.unordered.atomic calls are considered as GC leaf functions (like most other intrinsics). As a result GC cannot occur while copy operation is in progress. This might have negative effect on GC latencies

Thanks for the feedback. I think both of the suggestions are very reasonable. I’ll incorporate them. Given there were no objections for two weeks, I’m going to go ahead with posting individual patches for review. One small question inline: On Sep 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com<mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: In general, I am

[+CC llvm-dev this time] Hi, As discussed in the review thread in http://reviews.llvm.org/D16439, the future plan around statepoints, deopt bundles, PlaceSafepoints etc. is to "constant fold" -spp-no-statepoints and -rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles to true. We (Azul) have moved to a representation of safepoint polls, deopt state etc. that enables us to do the above; and at this point I'm

Thanks, I think that's a useful way to look at it (though if I wanted to bikeshed I'd suggest the name "DoubleIndirect" as a bit more precise than "VeryIndirect"). An aspect of it that I'm still puzzling over is that my target runtime (at least in its current form) doesn't have a way to represent/process a "VeryIndirect" pointer. So I'd like to

Sorry to reply to myself here, but I had an idea regarding "issue #2" -- possibly what makes the most sense for those clients/targets is to pull the pointer difference computation/reapplication into RS4GC itself -- it could have a pass just before or after rematerialization, which runs based on a configuration flag (eventually to be driven by GCStrategy), which performs rewrites like

As part of adding `"deopt"` operand bundles, we're aiming to change RewriteStatepointsForGC (called RS4GC henceforth) from rewriting existing `gc.statepoint` calls to transforming normal LLVM calls and invokes into `gc.statepoint` calls and invokes (i.e. to do PlaceSafepoints + RS4GC in one step). This will make `gc.statepoint` an artifact of the gc lowering strategy that only

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to

Now that the statepoint changes have landed, I wanted to start a discussion about what's next for GC support in LLVM. I'm going to sketch out a strawman proposal, but I'm not set on any of this. I mostly just want to draw interested parties out of the woodwork. :) Overall Direction: In the short term, my intent is to preserve the functionality of the existing code, but migrate

Hi, My collector supports only base pointers as stack roots. This wasn't a problem until I tried to run some optimizations before RS4GC, which introduced (interior) derived pointers. The statepoint documentation mentions that these collectors exist, but doesn't mention whether and how this is currently supported. What could I do to make it work? -Manuel

The long term plan is a) evolving, and b) dependent on the specific use case. :) It would definitely be nice if we could support both early and late safepoint insertion. I see no reason that LLVM as a project should pick one or the other since the infrastructure required is largely overlapping. (Obviously, I'm going to be mostly working on the parts that I need, but others are always

I've been looking at inlining invokes / calls done through statepoints and I want to have a design discussion before I sink too much time into something I'll have to throw away. I'm not actively working on adding inlining support to patchpoints, but I suspect these issues are applicable towards teaching LLVM to inline through patchpoints as well. There are two distinct problems to

Hi Martin, Philip covered all of it very well, I'll just add one minor comment: > More generally, can I back up and ask an important question? Do you have to > support deoptimization (i.e. osr side exits) in any form? If you do, you'll > probably want to avoid the PlaceSafepoints utility pass. If you need to PlaceSafepoints is inadequate only if you have asynchronous

Hello LLVM community, We have been experimenting with using LLVM IR as a target for a managed (dynamically typed) language via an AOT compiler (including a backend for ARM). One main challenge is getting the garbage collection right: We would like to be able to implement a moving collector. This requires us to a) find a precise set of root pointers and b) be able to rewrite those pointers after

As I've mentioned on the mailing list a couple of times over the last few months, we've been working on an approach for supporting precise fully relocating garbage collection in LLVM. I am happy to announce that we now have a version of the code available for public view and discussion. https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement

Hi Team, I'm working on a new pure functional language and I'm trying to add GC support for that. Because all vars are immutable, the IR that my frontend generates are all register based, i.e. no alloca, and no readmem, writemem unless accessing/constructing structs. If I use the traditional GC with gcroot intrinsic, it will need to emit more code for liveness tracking, storing the IR

Hi, I was wondering what’s the community guideline for adding new passes which are solely used for debugging/analysis purposes? Can this be in the upstream llvm, or such passes are more suitable in local downstream repository? In our case, the ‘utility (ease-of-analysis)’ pass is for transformation done by RewriteStatepointsForGC (RS4GC). Note that right now, RS4GC is not enabled in the opt

Hi Mehdi, On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: On Sep 30, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Anna Thomas via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, I was wondering what’s the community guideline for adding new passes which are solely used for debugging/analysis purposes?

Thanks for the comments and for taking a look. On 06/05/2014 02:19 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > Hi Philip, > > The first thing that I notice on looking at the code is the lack of comments. For example, about the only comment that I see in include /llvm/IR/Statepoint.h is a note telling me that a class is only intended to be used on the stack. Doxygen comments and, for a feature like

Thanks for reviving this. I completely forgot the details but I resolved this problem. Looking though the code, seems I forked RewriteStatepointsForGC pass, and change it to adding 'gc-livevars' bundle to the call/invoke inst after finding the livevars, instead of changing it to StatepointCall intrinsic. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:48 AM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>wrote: > On 10/25/13 1:10 PM, Ben Karel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at azulsystems.com>wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, Andrew, >> >> Thank you for the prompt reply. >> >> One approach we've been considering involves