Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
//===- PlaceSafepoints.cpp - Place GC Safepoints --------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
|
|
|
|
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Place garbage collection safepoints at appropriate locations in the IR. This
|
|
|
|
// does not make relocation semantics or variable liveness explicit. That's
|
|
|
|
// done by RewriteStatepointsForGC.
|
|
|
|
//
|
2015-02-10 06:44:03 +08:00
|
|
|
// Terminology:
|
|
|
|
// - A call is said to be "parseable" if there is a stack map generated for the
|
|
|
|
// return PC of the call. A runtime can determine where values listed in the
|
|
|
|
// deopt arguments and (after RewriteStatepointsForGC) gc arguments are located
|
|
|
|
// on the stack when the code is suspended inside such a call. Every parse
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
// point is represented by a call wrapped in an gc.statepoint intrinsic.
|
2015-02-10 06:44:03 +08:00
|
|
|
// - A "poll" is an explicit check in the generated code to determine if the
|
|
|
|
// runtime needs the generated code to cooperate by calling a helper routine
|
|
|
|
// and thus suspending its execution at a known state. The call to the helper
|
|
|
|
// routine will be parseable. The (gc & runtime specific) logic of a poll is
|
|
|
|
// assumed to be provided in a function of the name "gc.safepoint_poll".
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// We aim to insert polls such that running code can quickly be brought to a
|
|
|
|
// well defined state for inspection by the collector. In the current
|
|
|
|
// implementation, this is done via the insertion of poll sites at method entry
|
|
|
|
// and the backedge of most loops. We try to avoid inserting more polls than
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// are necessary to ensure a finite period between poll sites. This is not
|
2015-02-10 06:44:03 +08:00
|
|
|
// because the poll itself is expensive in the generated code; it's not. Polls
|
|
|
|
// do tend to impact the optimizer itself in negative ways; we'd like to avoid
|
|
|
|
// perturbing the optimization of the method as much as we can.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// We also need to make most call sites parseable. The callee might execute a
|
|
|
|
// poll (or otherwise be inspected by the GC). If so, the entire stack
|
|
|
|
// (including the suspended frame of the current method) must be parseable.
|
|
|
|
//
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// This pass will insert:
|
2015-02-10 06:44:03 +08:00
|
|
|
// - Call parse points ("call safepoints") for any call which may need to
|
|
|
|
// reach a safepoint during the execution of the callee function.
|
|
|
|
// - Backedge safepoint polls and entry safepoint polls to ensure that
|
|
|
|
// executing code reaches a safepoint poll in a finite amount of time.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// We do not currently support return statepoints, but adding them would not
|
|
|
|
// be hard. They are not required for correctness - entry safepoints are an
|
|
|
|
// alternative - but some GCs may prefer them. Patches welcome.
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Pass.h"
|
2015-02-13 18:01:29 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/LegacyPassManager.h"
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/SetOperations.h"
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/SetVector.h"
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
|
2015-05-20 09:07:23 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/StringRef.h"
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/CFG.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/CallSite.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/IRBuilder.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/InstIterator.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Intrinsics.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Module.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Statepoint.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Value.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/IR/Verifier.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define DEBUG_TYPE "safepoint-placement"
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(NumEntrySafepoints, "Number of entry safepoints inserted");
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(NumCallSafepoints, "Number of call safepoints inserted");
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(NumBackedgeSafepoints, "Number of backedge safepoints inserted");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(CallInLoop, "Number of loops w/o safepoints due to calls in loop");
|
|
|
|
STATISTIC(FiniteExecution, "Number of loops w/o safepoints finite execution");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using namespace llvm;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Ignore opportunities to avoid placing safepoints on backedges, useful for
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// validation
|
2015-02-21 07:32:03 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> AllBackedges("spp-all-backedges", cl::Hidden,
|
|
|
|
cl::init(false));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-09-15 09:42:48 +08:00
|
|
|
/// How narrow does the trip count of a loop have to be to have to be considered
|
|
|
|
/// "counted"? Counted loops do not get safepoints at backedges.
|
|
|
|
static cl::opt<int> CountedLoopTripWidth("spp-counted-loop-trip-width",
|
|
|
|
cl::Hidden, cl::init(32));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If true, split the backedge of a loop when placing the safepoint, otherwise
|
|
|
|
// split the latch block itself. Both are useful to support for
|
|
|
|
// experimentation, but in practice, it looks like splitting the backedge
|
|
|
|
// optimizes better.
|
2015-02-21 07:32:03 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> SplitBackedge("spp-split-backedge", cl::Hidden,
|
|
|
|
cl::init(false));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Print tracing output
|
2015-02-21 07:32:03 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> TraceLSP("spp-trace", cl::Hidden, cl::init(false));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
/// An analysis pass whose purpose is to identify each of the backedges in
|
|
|
|
/// the function which require a safepoint poll to be inserted.
|
|
|
|
struct PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl : public FunctionPass {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
static char ID;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// The output of the pass - gives a list of each backedge (described by
|
|
|
|
/// pointing at the branch) which need a poll inserted.
|
|
|
|
std::vector<TerminatorInst *> PollLocations;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// True unless we're running spp-no-calls in which case we need to disable
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
/// the call-dependent placement opts.
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
bool CallSafepointsEnabled;
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ScalarEvolution *SE = nullptr;
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree *DT = nullptr;
|
|
|
|
LoopInfo *LI = nullptr;
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl(bool CallSafepoints = false)
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
: FunctionPass(ID), CallSafepointsEnabled(CallSafepoints) {
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
initializePlaceBackedgeSafepointsImplPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
bool runOnLoop(Loop *);
|
|
|
|
void runOnLoopAndSubLoops(Loop *L) {
|
|
|
|
// Visit all the subloops
|
|
|
|
for (auto I = L->begin(), E = L->end(); I != E; I++)
|
|
|
|
runOnLoopAndSubLoops(*I);
|
|
|
|
runOnLoop(L);
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-05-13 05:49:47 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override {
|
[PM] Port ScalarEvolution to the new pass manager.
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
2015-08-17 10:08:17 +08:00
|
|
|
SE = &getAnalysis<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>().getSE();
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
DT = &getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree();
|
|
|
|
LI = &getAnalysis<LoopInfoWrapperPass>().getLoopInfo();
|
|
|
|
for (auto I = LI->begin(), E = LI->end(); I != E; I++) {
|
|
|
|
runOnLoopAndSubLoops(*I);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
|
2015-05-13 04:56:33 +08:00
|
|
|
AU.addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
|
[PM] Port ScalarEvolution to the new pass manager.
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
2015-08-17 10:08:17 +08:00
|
|
|
AU.addRequired<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>();
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
AU.addRequired<LoopInfoWrapperPass>();
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// We no longer modify the IR at all in this pass. Thus all
|
|
|
|
// analysis are preserved.
|
|
|
|
AU.setPreservesAll();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
2015-06-23 17:49:53 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 07:32:03 +08:00
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> NoEntry("spp-no-entry", cl::Hidden, cl::init(false));
|
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> NoCall("spp-no-call", cl::Hidden, cl::init(false));
|
|
|
|
static cl::opt<bool> NoBackedge("spp-no-backedge", cl::Hidden, cl::init(false));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
2015-05-13 05:21:18 +08:00
|
|
|
struct PlaceSafepoints : public FunctionPass {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 05:21:18 +08:00
|
|
|
PlaceSafepoints() : FunctionPass(ID) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
initializePlaceSafepointsPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-05-13 05:21:18 +08:00
|
|
|
bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
|
|
|
|
// We modify the graph wholesale (inlining, block insertion, etc). We
|
|
|
|
// preserve nothing at the moment. We could potentially preserve dom tree
|
|
|
|
// if that was worth doing
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
2015-06-23 17:49:53 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Insert a safepoint poll immediately before the given instruction. Does
|
|
|
|
// not handle the parsability of state at the runtime call, that's the
|
|
|
|
// callers job.
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
static void
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
InsertSafepointPoll(Instruction *InsertBefore,
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> &ParsePointsNeeded /*rval*/);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static bool needsStatepoint(const CallSite &CS) {
|
2015-10-09 07:18:30 +08:00
|
|
|
if (callsGCLeafFunction(CS))
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
if (CS.isCall()) {
|
|
|
|
CallInst *call = cast<CallInst>(CS.getInstruction());
|
|
|
|
if (call->isInlineAsm())
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (isStatepoint(CS) || isGCRelocate(CS) || isGCResult(CS)) {
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-16 03:40:57 +08:00
|
|
|
static Value *ReplaceWithStatepoint(const CallSite &CS);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Returns true if this loop is known to contain a call safepoint which
|
|
|
|
/// must unconditionally execute on any iteration of the loop which returns
|
|
|
|
/// to the loop header via an edge from Pred. Returns a conservative correct
|
|
|
|
/// answer; i.e. false is always valid.
|
|
|
|
static bool containsUnconditionalCallSafepoint(Loop *L, BasicBlock *Header,
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *Pred,
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree &DT) {
|
|
|
|
// In general, we're looking for any cut of the graph which ensures
|
|
|
|
// there's a call safepoint along every edge between Header and Pred.
|
|
|
|
// For the moment, we look only for the 'cuts' that consist of a single call
|
|
|
|
// instruction in a block which is dominated by the Header and dominates the
|
|
|
|
// loop latch (Pred) block. Somewhat surprisingly, walking the entire chain
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// of such dominating blocks gets substantially more occurrences than just
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// checking the Pred and Header blocks themselves. This may be due to the
|
|
|
|
// density of loop exit conditions caused by range and null checks.
|
|
|
|
// TODO: structure this as an analysis pass, cache the result for subloops,
|
|
|
|
// avoid dom tree recalculations
|
|
|
|
assert(DT.dominates(Header, Pred) && "loop latch not dominated by header?");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *Current = Pred;
|
|
|
|
while (true) {
|
|
|
|
for (Instruction &I : *Current) {
|
2015-04-10 22:50:08 +08:00
|
|
|
if (auto CS = CallSite(&I))
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// Note: Technically, needing a safepoint isn't quite the right
|
|
|
|
// condition here. We should instead be checking if the target method
|
|
|
|
// has an
|
|
|
|
// unconditional poll. In practice, this is only a theoretical concern
|
|
|
|
// since we don't have any methods with conditional-only safepoint
|
|
|
|
// polls.
|
|
|
|
if (needsStatepoint(CS))
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (Current == Header)
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
Current = DT.getNode(Current)->getIDom()->getBlock();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Returns true if this loop is known to terminate in a finite number of
|
|
|
|
/// iterations. Note that this function may return false for a loop which
|
|
|
|
/// does actual terminate in a finite constant number of iterations due to
|
|
|
|
/// conservatism in the analysis.
|
|
|
|
static bool mustBeFiniteCountedLoop(Loop *L, ScalarEvolution *SE,
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *Pred) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// A conservative bound on the loop as a whole.
|
|
|
|
const SCEV *MaxTrips = SE->getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L);
|
2015-09-15 09:42:48 +08:00
|
|
|
if (MaxTrips != SE->getCouldNotCompute() &&
|
|
|
|
SE->getUnsignedRange(MaxTrips).getUnsignedMax().isIntN(
|
|
|
|
CountedLoopTripWidth))
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If this is a conditional branch to the header with the alternate path
|
|
|
|
// being outside the loop, we can ask questions about the execution frequency
|
|
|
|
// of the exit block.
|
|
|
|
if (L->isLoopExiting(Pred)) {
|
|
|
|
// This returns an exact expression only. TODO: We really only need an
|
|
|
|
// upper bound here, but SE doesn't expose that.
|
|
|
|
const SCEV *MaxExec = SE->getExitCount(L, Pred);
|
2015-09-15 09:42:48 +08:00
|
|
|
if (MaxExec != SE->getCouldNotCompute() &&
|
|
|
|
SE->getUnsignedRange(MaxExec).getUnsignedMax().isIntN(
|
|
|
|
CountedLoopTripWidth))
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return /* not finite */ false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static void scanOneBB(Instruction *start, Instruction *end,
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallInst *> &calls,
|
|
|
|
std::set<BasicBlock *> &seen,
|
|
|
|
std::vector<BasicBlock *> &worklist) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock::iterator itr(start);
|
|
|
|
itr != start->getParent()->end() && itr != BasicBlock::iterator(end);
|
|
|
|
itr++) {
|
|
|
|
if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(&*itr)) {
|
|
|
|
calls.push_back(CI);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// FIXME: This code does not handle invokes
|
|
|
|
assert(!dyn_cast<InvokeInst>(&*itr) &&
|
|
|
|
"support for invokes in poll code needed");
|
|
|
|
// Only add the successor blocks if we reach the terminator instruction
|
|
|
|
// without encountering end first
|
|
|
|
if (itr->isTerminator()) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB = itr->getParent();
|
2015-02-10 06:26:11 +08:00
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *Succ : successors(BB)) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
if (seen.count(Succ) == 0) {
|
|
|
|
worklist.push_back(Succ);
|
|
|
|
seen.insert(Succ);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static void scanInlinedCode(Instruction *start, Instruction *end,
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallInst *> &calls,
|
|
|
|
std::set<BasicBlock *> &seen) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
calls.clear();
|
|
|
|
std::vector<BasicBlock *> worklist;
|
|
|
|
seen.insert(start->getParent());
|
|
|
|
scanOneBB(start, end, calls, seen, worklist);
|
|
|
|
while (!worklist.empty()) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *BB = worklist.back();
|
|
|
|
worklist.pop_back();
|
|
|
|
scanOneBB(&*BB->begin(), end, calls, seen, worklist);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
bool PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl::runOnLoop(Loop *L) {
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
// Loop through all loop latches (branches controlling backedges). We need
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
// to place a safepoint on every backedge (potentially).
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
// Note: In common usage, there will be only one edge due to LoopSimplify
|
|
|
|
// having run sometime earlier in the pipeline, but this code must be correct
|
|
|
|
// w.r.t. loops with multiple backedges.
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *header = L->getHeader();
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
SmallVector<BasicBlock*, 16> LoopLatches;
|
|
|
|
L->getLoopLatches(LoopLatches);
|
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *pred : LoopLatches) {
|
|
|
|
assert(L->contains(pred));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Make a policy decision about whether this loop needs a safepoint or
|
|
|
|
// not. Note that this is about unburdening the optimizer in loops, not
|
|
|
|
// avoiding the runtime cost of the actual safepoint.
|
|
|
|
if (!AllBackedges) {
|
|
|
|
if (mustBeFiniteCountedLoop(L, SE, pred)) {
|
|
|
|
if (TraceLSP)
|
|
|
|
errs() << "skipping safepoint placement in finite loop\n";
|
|
|
|
FiniteExecution++;
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (CallSafepointsEnabled &&
|
2015-05-13 04:56:33 +08:00
|
|
|
containsUnconditionalCallSafepoint(L, header, pred, *DT)) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// Note: This is only semantically legal since we won't do any further
|
|
|
|
// IPO or inlining before the actual call insertion.. If we hadn't, we
|
|
|
|
// might latter loose this call safepoint.
|
|
|
|
if (TraceLSP)
|
|
|
|
errs() << "skipping safepoint placement due to unconditional call\n";
|
|
|
|
CallInLoop++;
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: We can create an inner loop which runs a finite number of
|
|
|
|
// iterations with an outer loop which contains a safepoint. This would
|
|
|
|
// not help runtime performance that much, but it might help our ability to
|
|
|
|
// optimize the inner loop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Safepoint insertion would involve creating a new basic block (as the
|
|
|
|
// target of the current backedge) which does the safepoint (of all live
|
|
|
|
// variables) and branches to the true header
|
|
|
|
TerminatorInst *term = pred->getTerminator();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (TraceLSP) {
|
|
|
|
errs() << "[LSP] terminator instruction: ";
|
|
|
|
term->dump();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PollLocations.push_back(term);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
return false;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-20 07:40:11 +08:00
|
|
|
/// Returns true if an entry safepoint is not required before this callsite in
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
/// the caller function.
|
2015-05-20 07:40:11 +08:00
|
|
|
static bool doesNotRequireEntrySafepointBefore(const CallSite &CS) {
|
|
|
|
Instruction *Inst = CS.getInstruction();
|
|
|
|
if (IntrinsicInst *II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(Inst)) {
|
|
|
|
switch (II->getIntrinsicID()) {
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_gc_statepoint:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_void:
|
|
|
|
case Intrinsic::experimental_patchpoint_i64:
|
|
|
|
// The can wrap an actual call which may grow the stack by an unbounded
|
|
|
|
// amount or run forever.
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
// Most LLVM intrinsics are things which do not expand to actual calls, or
|
|
|
|
// at least if they do, are leaf functions that cause only finite stack
|
|
|
|
// growth. In particular, the optimizer likes to form things like memsets
|
|
|
|
// out of stores in the original IR. Another important example is
|
Rename llvm.frameescape and llvm.framerecover to localescape and localrecover
Summary:
Initially, these intrinsics seemed like part of a family of "frame"
related intrinsics, but now I think that's more confusing than helpful.
Initially, the LangRef specified that this would create a new kind of
allocation that would be allocated at a fixed offset from the frame
pointer (EBP/RBP). We ended up dropping that design, and leaving the
stack frame layout alone.
These intrinsics are really about sharing local stack allocations, not
frame pointers. I intend to go further and add an `llvm.localaddress()`
intrinsic that returns whatever register (EBP, ESI, ESP, RBX) is being
used to address locals, which should not be confused with the frame
pointer.
Naming suggestions at this point are welcome, I'm happy to re-run sed.
Reviewers: majnemer, nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11011
llvm-svn: 241633
2015-07-08 06:25:32 +08:00
|
|
|
// llvm.localescape which must occur in the entry block. Inserting a
|
|
|
|
// safepoint before it is not legal since it could push the localescape
|
2015-05-20 07:40:11 +08:00
|
|
|
// out of the entry block.
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
static Instruction *findLocationForEntrySafepoint(Function &F,
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree &DT) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Conceptually, this poll needs to be on method entry, but in
|
|
|
|
// practice, we place it as late in the entry block as possible. We
|
|
|
|
// can place it as late as we want as long as it dominates all calls
|
|
|
|
// that can grow the stack. This, combined with backedge polls,
|
|
|
|
// give us all the progress guarantees we need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// hasNextInstruction and nextInstruction are used to iterate
|
|
|
|
// through a "straight line" execution sequence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto hasNextInstruction = [](Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
if (!I->isTerminator()) {
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *nextBB = I->getParent()->getUniqueSuccessor();
|
|
|
|
return nextBB && (nextBB->getUniquePredecessor() != nullptr);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto nextInstruction = [&hasNextInstruction](Instruction *I) {
|
|
|
|
assert(hasNextInstruction(I) &&
|
|
|
|
"first check if there is a next instruction!");
|
|
|
|
if (I->isTerminator()) {
|
2015-10-14 03:26:58 +08:00
|
|
|
return &I->getParent()->getUniqueSuccessor()->front();
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
2015-10-14 03:26:58 +08:00
|
|
|
return &*++I->getIterator();
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruction *cursor = nullptr;
|
2015-10-14 03:26:58 +08:00
|
|
|
for (cursor = &F.getEntryBlock().front(); hasNextInstruction(cursor);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
cursor = nextInstruction(cursor)) {
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-20 07:40:11 +08:00
|
|
|
// We need to ensure a safepoint poll occurs before any 'real' call. The
|
|
|
|
// easiest way to ensure finite execution between safepoints in the face of
|
|
|
|
// recursive and mutually recursive functions is to enforce that each take
|
|
|
|
// a safepoint. Additionally, we need to ensure a poll before any call
|
|
|
|
// which can grow the stack by an unbounded amount. This isn't required
|
|
|
|
// for GC semantics per se, but is a common requirement for languages
|
|
|
|
// which detect stack overflow via guard pages and then throw exceptions.
|
|
|
|
if (auto CS = CallSite(cursor)) {
|
|
|
|
if (doesNotRequireEntrySafepointBefore(CS))
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
assert((hasNextInstruction(cursor) || cursor->isTerminator()) &&
|
|
|
|
"either we stopped because of a call, or because of terminator");
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-27 05:16:42 +08:00
|
|
|
return cursor;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Identify the list of call sites which need to be have parseable state
|
|
|
|
static void findCallSafepoints(Function &F,
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> &Found /*rval*/) {
|
|
|
|
assert(Found.empty() && "must be empty!");
|
2015-08-07 03:10:45 +08:00
|
|
|
for (Instruction &I : instructions(F)) {
|
2015-02-10 06:26:11 +08:00
|
|
|
Instruction *inst = &I;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
if (isa<CallInst>(inst) || isa<InvokeInst>(inst)) {
|
|
|
|
CallSite CS(inst);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// No safepoint needed or wanted
|
|
|
|
if (!needsStatepoint(CS)) {
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Found.push_back(CS);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Implement a unique function which doesn't require we sort the input
|
|
|
|
/// vector. Doing so has the effect of changing the output of a couple of
|
|
|
|
/// tests in ways which make them less useful in testing fused safepoints.
|
|
|
|
template <typename T> static void unique_unsorted(std::vector<T> &vec) {
|
|
|
|
std::set<T> seen;
|
|
|
|
std::vector<T> tmp;
|
|
|
|
vec.reserve(vec.size());
|
|
|
|
std::swap(tmp, vec);
|
|
|
|
for (auto V : tmp) {
|
|
|
|
if (seen.insert(V).second) {
|
|
|
|
vec.push_back(V);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-08 00:36:28 +08:00
|
|
|
static const char *const GCSafepointPollName = "gc.safepoint_poll";
|
2015-02-10 05:48:05 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static bool isGCSafepointPoll(Function &F) {
|
|
|
|
return F.getName().equals(GCSafepointPollName);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
/// Returns true if this function should be rewritten to include safepoint
|
|
|
|
/// polls and parseable call sites. The main point of this function is to be
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
/// an extension point for custom logic.
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
static bool shouldRewriteFunction(Function &F) {
|
|
|
|
// TODO: This should check the GCStrategy
|
|
|
|
if (F.hasGC()) {
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
const char *FunctionGCName = F.getGC();
|
|
|
|
const StringRef StatepointExampleName("statepoint-example");
|
|
|
|
const StringRef CoreCLRName("coreclr");
|
|
|
|
return (StatepointExampleName == FunctionGCName) ||
|
2015-05-25 09:43:34 +08:00
|
|
|
(CoreCLRName == FunctionGCName);
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: These should become properties of the GCStrategy, possibly with
|
|
|
|
// command line overrides.
|
|
|
|
static bool enableEntrySafepoints(Function &F) { return !NoEntry; }
|
|
|
|
static bool enableBackedgeSafepoints(Function &F) { return !NoBackedge; }
|
|
|
|
static bool enableCallSafepoints(Function &F) { return !NoCall; }
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-08 19:59:09 +08:00
|
|
|
// Normalize basic block to make it ready to be target of invoke statepoint.
|
|
|
|
// Ensure that 'BB' does not have phi nodes. It may require spliting it.
|
|
|
|
static BasicBlock *normalizeForInvokeSafepoint(BasicBlock *BB,
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *InvokeParent) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *ret = BB;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!BB->getUniquePredecessor()) {
|
|
|
|
ret = SplitBlockPredecessors(BB, InvokeParent, "");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Now that 'ret' has unique predecessor we can safely remove all phi nodes
|
|
|
|
// from it
|
|
|
|
FoldSingleEntryPHINodes(ret);
|
|
|
|
assert(!isa<PHINode>(ret->begin()));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
bool PlaceSafepoints::runOnFunction(Function &F) {
|
|
|
|
if (F.isDeclaration() || F.empty()) {
|
|
|
|
// This is a declaration, nothing to do. Must exit early to avoid crash in
|
|
|
|
// dom tree calculation
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-10 08:04:53 +08:00
|
|
|
if (isGCSafepointPoll(F)) {
|
|
|
|
// Given we're inlining this inside of safepoint poll insertion, this
|
|
|
|
// doesn't make any sense. Note that we do make any contained calls
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
// parseable after we inline a poll.
|
2015-02-10 08:04:53 +08:00
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
if (!shouldRewriteFunction(F))
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
bool modified = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// In various bits below, we rely on the fact that uses are reachable from
|
|
|
|
// defs. When there are basic blocks unreachable from the entry, dominance
|
|
|
|
// and reachablity queries return non-sensical results. Thus, we preprocess
|
|
|
|
// the function to ensure these properties hold.
|
|
|
|
modified |= removeUnreachableBlocks(F);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// STEP 1 - Insert the safepoint polling locations. We do not need to
|
|
|
|
// actually insert parse points yet. That will be done for all polls and
|
|
|
|
// calls in a single pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DominatorTree DT;
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
DT.recalculate(F);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
SmallVector<Instruction *, 16> PollsNeeded;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> ParsePointNeeded;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
if (enableBackedgeSafepoints(F)) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// Construct a pass manager to run the LoopPass backedge logic. We
|
|
|
|
// need the pass manager to handle scheduling all the loop passes
|
|
|
|
// appropriately. Doing this by hand is painful and just not worth messing
|
|
|
|
// with for the moment.
|
2015-02-13 18:01:29 +08:00
|
|
|
legacy::FunctionPassManager FPM(F.getParent());
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
bool CanAssumeCallSafepoints = enableCallSafepoints(F);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl *PBS =
|
2015-02-10 05:48:05 +08:00
|
|
|
new PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl(CanAssumeCallSafepoints);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
FPM.add(PBS);
|
|
|
|
FPM.run(F);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We preserve dominance information when inserting the poll, otherwise
|
|
|
|
// we'd have to recalculate this on every insert
|
|
|
|
DT.recalculate(F);
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
auto &PollLocations = PBS->PollLocations;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto OrderByBBName = [](Instruction *a, Instruction *b) {
|
|
|
|
return a->getParent()->getName() < b->getParent()->getName();
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// We need the order of list to be stable so that naming ends up stable
|
|
|
|
// when we split edges. This makes test cases much easier to write.
|
|
|
|
std::sort(PollLocations.begin(), PollLocations.end(), OrderByBBName);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We can sometimes end up with duplicate poll locations. This happens if
|
|
|
|
// a single loop is visited more than once. The fact this happens seems
|
|
|
|
// wrong, but it does happen for the split-backedge.ll test case.
|
|
|
|
PollLocations.erase(std::unique(PollLocations.begin(),
|
|
|
|
PollLocations.end()),
|
|
|
|
PollLocations.end());
|
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// Insert a poll at each point the analysis pass identified
|
2015-05-13 07:39:23 +08:00
|
|
|
// The poll location must be the terminator of a loop latch block.
|
|
|
|
for (TerminatorInst *Term : PollLocations) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// We are inserting a poll, the function is modified
|
|
|
|
modified = true;
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
if (SplitBackedge) {
|
|
|
|
// Split the backedge of the loop and insert the poll within that new
|
|
|
|
// basic block. This creates a loop with two latches per original
|
|
|
|
// latch (which is non-ideal), but this appears to be easier to
|
|
|
|
// optimize in practice than inserting the poll immediately before the
|
|
|
|
// latch test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Since this is a latch, at least one of the successors must dominate
|
|
|
|
// it. Its possible that we have a) duplicate edges to the same header
|
|
|
|
// and b) edges to distinct loop headers. We need to insert pools on
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
// each.
|
|
|
|
SetVector<BasicBlock *> Headers;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
for (unsigned i = 0; i < Term->getNumSuccessors(); i++) {
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock *Succ = Term->getSuccessor(i);
|
|
|
|
if (DT.dominates(Succ, Term->getParent())) {
|
|
|
|
Headers.insert(Succ);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
assert(!Headers.empty() && "poll location is not a loop latch?");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The split loop structure here is so that we only need to recalculate
|
|
|
|
// the dominator tree once. Alternatively, we could just keep it up to
|
|
|
|
// date and use a more natural merged loop.
|
2015-05-13 04:43:48 +08:00
|
|
|
SetVector<BasicBlock *> SplitBackedges;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
for (BasicBlock *Header : Headers) {
|
2015-05-13 07:39:23 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *NewBB = SplitEdge(Term->getParent(), Header, &DT);
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
PollsNeeded.push_back(NewBB->getTerminator());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
NumBackedgeSafepoints++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
// Split the latch block itself, right before the terminator.
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
PollsNeeded.push_back(Term);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
NumBackedgeSafepoints++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
if (enableEntrySafepoints(F)) {
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
Instruction *Location = findLocationForEntrySafepoint(F, DT);
|
|
|
|
if (!Location) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// policy choice not to insert?
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
PollsNeeded.push_back(Location);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
modified = true;
|
|
|
|
NumEntrySafepoints++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 08:32:23 +08:00
|
|
|
// Now that we've identified all the needed safepoint poll locations, insert
|
|
|
|
// safepoint polls themselves.
|
|
|
|
for (Instruction *PollLocation : PollsNeeded) {
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> RuntimeCalls;
|
|
|
|
InsertSafepointPoll(PollLocation, RuntimeCalls);
|
|
|
|
ParsePointNeeded.insert(ParsePointNeeded.end(), RuntimeCalls.begin(),
|
|
|
|
RuntimeCalls.end());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
PollsNeeded.clear(); // make sure we don't accidentally use
|
|
|
|
// The dominator tree has been invalidated by the inlining performed in the
|
|
|
|
// above loop. TODO: Teach the inliner how to update the dom tree?
|
|
|
|
DT.recalculate(F);
|
2015-05-25 09:43:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-02-21 08:09:09 +08:00
|
|
|
if (enableCallSafepoints(F)) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> Calls;
|
|
|
|
findCallSafepoints(F, Calls);
|
|
|
|
NumCallSafepoints += Calls.size();
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
ParsePointNeeded.insert(ParsePointNeeded.end(), Calls.begin(), Calls.end());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Unique the vectors since we can end up with duplicates if we scan the call
|
|
|
|
// site for call safepoints after we add it for entry or backedge. The
|
|
|
|
// only reason we need tracking at all is that some functions might have
|
|
|
|
// polls but not call safepoints and thus we might miss marking the runtime
|
|
|
|
// calls for the polls. (This is useful in test cases!)
|
|
|
|
unique_unsorted(ParsePointNeeded);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Any parse point (no matter what source) will be handled here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We're about to start modifying the function
|
|
|
|
if (!ParsePointNeeded.empty())
|
|
|
|
modified = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Now run through and insert the safepoints, but do _NOT_ update or remove
|
|
|
|
// any existing uses. We have references to live variables that need to
|
|
|
|
// survive to the last iteration of this loop.
|
|
|
|
std::vector<Value *> Results;
|
|
|
|
Results.reserve(ParsePointNeeded.size());
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < ParsePointNeeded.size(); i++) {
|
|
|
|
CallSite &CS = ParsePointNeeded[i];
|
2015-05-08 19:59:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// For invoke statepoints we need to remove all phi nodes at the normal
|
|
|
|
// destination block.
|
|
|
|
// Reason for this is that we can place gc_result only after last phi node
|
|
|
|
// in basic block. We will get malformed code after RAUW for the
|
|
|
|
// gc_result if one of this phi nodes uses result from the invoke.
|
|
|
|
if (InvokeInst *Invoke = dyn_cast<InvokeInst>(CS.getInstruction())) {
|
|
|
|
normalizeForInvokeSafepoint(Invoke->getNormalDest(),
|
|
|
|
Invoke->getParent());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2015-12-16 03:40:57 +08:00
|
|
|
Value *GCResult = ReplaceWithStatepoint(CS);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
Results.push_back(GCResult);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
assert(Results.size() == ParsePointNeeded.size());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Adjust all users of the old call sites to use the new ones instead
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < ParsePointNeeded.size(); i++) {
|
|
|
|
CallSite &CS = ParsePointNeeded[i];
|
|
|
|
Value *GCResult = Results[i];
|
|
|
|
if (GCResult) {
|
2015-05-19 03:02:25 +08:00
|
|
|
// Can not RAUW for the invoke gc result in case of phi nodes preset.
|
|
|
|
assert(CS.isCall() || !isa<PHINode>(cast<Instruction>(GCResult)->getParent()->begin()));
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Replace all uses with the new call
|
|
|
|
CS.getInstruction()->replaceAllUsesWith(GCResult);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Now that we've handled all uses, remove the original call itself
|
|
|
|
// Note: The insert point can't be the deleted instruction!
|
|
|
|
CS.getInstruction()->eraseFromParent();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return modified;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
char PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl::ID = 0;
|
|
|
|
char PlaceSafepoints::ID = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-13 05:21:18 +08:00
|
|
|
FunctionPass *llvm::createPlaceSafepointsPass() {
|
|
|
|
return new PlaceSafepoints();
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl,
|
|
|
|
"place-backedge-safepoints-impl",
|
|
|
|
"Place Backedge Safepoints", false, false)
|
[PM] Port ScalarEvolution to the new pass manager.
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
2015-08-17 10:08:17 +08:00
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass)
|
2015-05-13 04:56:33 +08:00
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DominatorTreeWrapperPass)
|
2015-05-13 05:09:36 +08:00
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfoWrapperPass)
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(PlaceBackedgeSafepointsImpl,
|
|
|
|
"place-backedge-safepoints-impl",
|
|
|
|
"Place Backedge Safepoints", false, false)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(PlaceSafepoints, "place-safepoints", "Place Safepoints",
|
|
|
|
false, false)
|
|
|
|
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(PlaceSafepoints, "place-safepoints", "Place Safepoints",
|
|
|
|
false, false)
|
|
|
|
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
static void
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
InsertSafepointPoll(Instruction *InsertBefore,
|
2015-02-04 08:39:57 +08:00
|
|
|
std::vector<CallSite> &ParsePointsNeeded /*rval*/) {
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *OrigBB = InsertBefore->getParent();
|
|
|
|
Module *M = InsertBefore->getModule();
|
|
|
|
assert(M && "must be part of a module");
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Inline the safepoint poll implementation - this will get all the branch,
|
|
|
|
// control flow, etc.. Most importantly, it will introduce the actual slow
|
|
|
|
// path call - where we need to insert a safepoint (parsepoint).
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
auto *F = M->getFunction(GCSafepointPollName);
|
2015-12-30 05:57:55 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(F && "gc.safepoint_poll function is missing");
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(F->getType()->getElementType() ==
|
|
|
|
FunctionType::get(Type::getVoidTy(M->getContext()), false) &&
|
|
|
|
"gc.safepoint_poll declared with wrong type");
|
2015-02-10 07:02:10 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(!F->empty() && "gc.safepoint_poll must be a non-empty function");
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
CallInst *PollCall = CallInst::Create(F, "", InsertBefore);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Record some information about the call site we're replacing
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock::iterator before(PollCall), after(PollCall);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
bool isBegin(false);
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
if (before == OrigBB->begin()) {
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
isBegin = true;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
before--;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
after++;
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(after != OrigBB->end() && "must have successor");
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// do the actual inlining
|
|
|
|
InlineFunctionInfo IFI;
|
2015-05-27 05:03:23 +08:00
|
|
|
bool InlineStatus = InlineFunction(PollCall, IFI);
|
|
|
|
assert(InlineStatus && "inline must succeed");
|
|
|
|
(void)InlineStatus; // suppress warning in release-asserts
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Check post conditions
|
|
|
|
assert(IFI.StaticAllocas.empty() && "can't have allocs");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::vector<CallInst *> calls; // new calls
|
|
|
|
std::set<BasicBlock *> BBs; // new BBs + insertee
|
|
|
|
// Include only the newly inserted instructions, Note: begin may not be valid
|
|
|
|
// if we inserted to the beginning of the basic block
|
|
|
|
BasicBlock::iterator start;
|
|
|
|
if (isBegin) {
|
|
|
|
start = OrigBB->begin();
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
start = before;
|
|
|
|
start++;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If your poll function includes an unreachable at the end, that's not
|
|
|
|
// valid. Bugpoint likes to create this, so check for it.
|
|
|
|
assert(isPotentiallyReachable(&*start, &*after, nullptr, nullptr) &&
|
|
|
|
"malformed poll function");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scanInlinedCode(&*(start), &*(after), calls, BBs);
|
|
|
|
assert(!calls.empty() && "slow path not found for safepoint poll");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Record the fact we need a parsable state at the runtime call contained in
|
|
|
|
// the poll function. This is required so that the runtime knows how to
|
|
|
|
// parse the last frame when we actually take the safepoint (i.e. execute
|
|
|
|
// the slow path)
|
|
|
|
assert(ParsePointsNeeded.empty());
|
|
|
|
for (size_t i = 0; i < calls.size(); i++) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// No safepoint needed or wanted
|
|
|
|
if (!needsStatepoint(calls[i])) {
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// These are likely runtime calls. Should we assert that via calling
|
|
|
|
// convention or something?
|
|
|
|
ParsePointsNeeded.push_back(CallSite(calls[i]));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
assert(ParsePointsNeeded.size() <= calls.size());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Replaces the given call site (Call or Invoke) with a gc.statepoint
|
|
|
|
/// intrinsic with an empty deoptimization arguments list. This does
|
|
|
|
/// NOT do explicit relocation for GC support.
|
2015-12-16 03:40:57 +08:00
|
|
|
static Value *ReplaceWithStatepoint(const CallSite &CS /* to replace */) {
|
2015-12-15 01:24:23 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(CS.getInstruction()->getModule() && "must be set");
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: technically, a pass is not allowed to get functions from within a
|
|
|
|
// function pass since it might trigger a new function addition. Refactor
|
|
|
|
// this logic out to the initialization of the pass. Doesn't appear to
|
|
|
|
// matter in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Then go ahead and use the builder do actually do the inserts. We insert
|
|
|
|
// immediately before the previous instruction under the assumption that all
|
|
|
|
// arguments will be available here. We can't insert afterwards since we may
|
|
|
|
// be replacing a terminator.
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
IRBuilder<> Builder(CS.getInstruction());
|
2015-02-10 05:48:05 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Note: The gc args are not filled in at this time, that's handled by
|
|
|
|
// RewriteStatepointsForGC (which is currently under review).
|
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
// Create the statepoint given all the arguments
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Instruction *Token = nullptr;
|
2015-05-14 04:11:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint64_t ID;
|
|
|
|
uint32_t NumPatchBytes;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AttributeSet OriginalAttrs = CS.getAttributes();
|
|
|
|
Attribute AttrID =
|
|
|
|
OriginalAttrs.getAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, "statepoint-id");
|
|
|
|
Attribute AttrNumPatchBytes = OriginalAttrs.getAttribute(
|
|
|
|
AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, "statepoint-num-patch-bytes");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AttrBuilder AttrsToRemove;
|
|
|
|
bool HasID = AttrID.isStringAttribute() &&
|
|
|
|
!AttrID.getValueAsString().getAsInteger(10, ID);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (HasID)
|
|
|
|
AttrsToRemove.addAttribute("statepoint-id");
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
ID = 0xABCDEF00;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool HasNumPatchBytes =
|
|
|
|
AttrNumPatchBytes.isStringAttribute() &&
|
|
|
|
!AttrNumPatchBytes.getValueAsString().getAsInteger(10, NumPatchBytes);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (HasNumPatchBytes)
|
|
|
|
AttrsToRemove.addAttribute("statepoint-num-patch-bytes");
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
NumPatchBytes = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalAttrs = OriginalAttrs.removeAttributes(
|
|
|
|
CS.getInstruction()->getContext(), AttributeSet::FunctionIndex,
|
|
|
|
AttrsToRemove);
|
|
|
|
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
if (CS.isCall()) {
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
CallInst *ToReplace = cast<CallInst>(CS.getInstruction());
|
2015-05-07 07:53:09 +08:00
|
|
|
CallInst *Call = Builder.CreateGCStatepointCall(
|
2015-07-29 07:50:30 +08:00
|
|
|
ID, NumPatchBytes, CS.getCalledValue(),
|
2015-05-14 04:11:31 +08:00
|
|
|
makeArrayRef(CS.arg_begin(), CS.arg_end()), None, None,
|
|
|
|
"safepoint_token");
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Call->setTailCall(ToReplace->isTailCall());
|
|
|
|
Call->setCallingConv(ToReplace->getCallingConv());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-07 07:53:21 +08:00
|
|
|
// In case if we can handle this set of attributes - set up function
|
|
|
|
// attributes directly on statepoint and return attributes later for
|
|
|
|
// gc_result intrinsic.
|
|
|
|
Call->setAttributes(OriginalAttrs.getFnAttributes());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Token = Call;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Put the following gc_result and gc_relocate calls immediately after
|
2015-05-07 07:53:21 +08:00
|
|
|
// the old call (which we're about to delete).
|
|
|
|
assert(ToReplace->getNextNode() && "not a terminator, must have next");
|
|
|
|
Builder.SetInsertPoint(ToReplace->getNextNode());
|
|
|
|
Builder.SetCurrentDebugLocation(ToReplace->getNextNode()->getDebugLoc());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
} else if (CS.isInvoke()) {
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
InvokeInst *ToReplace = cast<InvokeInst>(CS.getInstruction());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Insert the new invoke into the old block. We'll remove the old one in a
|
|
|
|
// moment at which point this will become the new terminator for the
|
|
|
|
// original block.
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Builder.SetInsertPoint(ToReplace->getParent());
|
|
|
|
InvokeInst *Invoke = Builder.CreateGCStatepointInvoke(
|
2015-07-29 07:50:30 +08:00
|
|
|
ID, NumPatchBytes, CS.getCalledValue(), ToReplace->getNormalDest(),
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
ToReplace->getUnwindDest(), makeArrayRef(CS.arg_begin(), CS.arg_end()),
|
2015-05-15 08:26:15 +08:00
|
|
|
None, None, "safepoint_token");
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-15 08:26:21 +08:00
|
|
|
Invoke->setCallingConv(ToReplace->getCallingConv());
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-07 07:53:21 +08:00
|
|
|
// In case if we can handle this set of attributes - set up function
|
|
|
|
// attributes directly on statepoint and return attributes later for
|
|
|
|
// gc_result intrinsic.
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Invoke->setAttributes(OriginalAttrs.getFnAttributes());
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
Token = Invoke;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We'll insert the gc.result into the normal block
|
2015-05-08 19:59:09 +08:00
|
|
|
BasicBlock *NormalDest = ToReplace->getNormalDest();
|
|
|
|
// Can not insert gc.result in case of phi nodes preset.
|
2015-08-09 02:27:36 +08:00
|
|
|
// Should have removed this cases prior to running this function
|
2015-05-08 19:59:09 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(!isa<PHINode>(NormalDest->begin()));
|
|
|
|
Instruction *IP = &*(NormalDest->getFirstInsertionPt());
|
|
|
|
Builder.SetInsertPoint(IP);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
llvm_unreachable("unexpect type of CallSite");
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
assert(Token);
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Handle the return value of the original call - update all uses to use a
|
|
|
|
// gc_result hanging off the statepoint node we just inserted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Only add the gc_result iff there is actually a used result
|
|
|
|
if (!CS.getType()->isVoidTy() && !CS.getInstruction()->use_empty()) {
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
std::string TakenName =
|
|
|
|
CS.getInstruction()->hasName() ? CS.getInstruction()->getName() : "";
|
|
|
|
CallInst *GCResult = Builder.CreateGCResult(Token, CS.getType(), TakenName);
|
2015-05-07 07:53:21 +08:00
|
|
|
GCResult->setAttributes(OriginalAttrs.getRetAttributes());
|
2015-05-07 07:53:19 +08:00
|
|
|
return GCResult;
|
Add a pass for inserting safepoints into (nearly) arbitrary IR
This pass is responsible for figuring out where to place call safepoints and safepoint polls. It doesn't actually make the relocations explicit; that's the job of the RewriteStatepointsForGC pass (http://reviews.llvm.org/D6975).
Note that this code is not yet finalized. Its moving in tree for incremental development, but further cleanup is needed and will happen over the next few days. It is not yet part of the standard pass order.
Planned changes in the near future:
- I plan on restructuring the statepoint rewrite to use the functions add to the IRBuilder a while back.
- In the current pass, the function "gc.safepoint_poll" is treated specially but is not an intrinsic. I plan to make identifying the poll function a property of the GCStrategy at some point in the near future.
- As follow on patches, I will be separating a collection of test cases we have out of tree and submitting them upstream.
- It's not explicit in the code, but these two patches are introducing a new state for a statepoint which looks a lot like a patchpoint. There's no a transient form which doesn't yet have the relocations explicitly represented, but does prevent reordering of memory operations. Once this is in, I need to update actually make this explicit by reserving the 'unused' argument of the statepoint as a flag, updating the docs, and making the code explicitly check for such a thing. This wasn't really planned, but once I split the two passes - which was done for other reasons - the intermediate state fell out. Just reminds us once again that we need to merge statepoints and patchpoints at some point in the not that distant future.
Future directions planned:
- Identifying more cases where a backedge safepoint isn't required to ensure timely execution of a safepoint poll.
- Tweaking the insertion process to generate easier to optimize IR. (For example, investigating making SplitBackedge) the default.
- Adding opt-in flags for a GCStrategy to use this pass. Once done, add this pass to the actual pass ordering.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6981
llvm-svn: 228090
2015-02-04 08:37:33 +08:00
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
// No return value for the call.
|
|
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|