[No Merge] CopyBlk copyprop #24915
[No Merge] CopyBlk copyprop #24915
Conversation
benaadams
force-pushed
the
copyprop-structs
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2a298dc
to
1432b15
Compare
|
Hmm... not sure what |
|
Is there any evidence that this is somehow critical for application performance? I don't see something like this merged in 3.0... |
Async aside (which is one of my reasons for looking into it); its much more common now with the renaissance of struct types. For example private static bool DoJson()
{
bool result = true;
using (JsonDocument doc = JsonDocument.Parse("[true,false]"))
{
JsonElement parsedObject = doc.RootElement;
bool first = parsedObject[0].GetBoolean();
bool second = parsedObject[1].GetBoolean();
result &= true == first;
result &= false == second;
}
return result;
}Calls into ; Assembly listing for method JsonDocument:Parse(struct,struct,byref,byref)
...
4881EC480B0000 sub rsp, 0xB48 ; 2888
C5F877 vzeroupper
488BF1 mov rsi, rcx
488D7C2420 lea rdi, [rsp+20H]
B9C4020000 mov ecx, 708
33C0 xor rax, rax
F3AB rep stosd
...
G_M55736_IG13:
C5FA6F8424000B0000 vmovdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rsp+B00H]
C5FA7F8424100B0000 vmovdqu qword ptr [rsp+B10H], xmm0
G_M55736_IG14:
C5FA6F8424100B0000 vmovdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rsp+B10H]
C5FA7F8424200B0000 vmovdqu qword ptr [rsp+B20H], xmm0... x254 more |
|
In SSA every use has one definition (the "single" in "Sparse Single Assignment"). If in classic dataflow multiple definitions can reach a use, SSA requires inserting a "pseudo-definition" (PHI) to merge all the uses into a single value. A PHI_ARG is an input to a PHI. The jit is going to expect the local var for the destination and all sources of a PHI to match. So you should avoid modifying them. cc @dotnet/jit-contrib |
benaadams
force-pushed
the
copyprop-structs
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8366b93
to
f100c7d
Compare
; Assembly listing for method JsonDocument:Parse(struct,struct,byref,byref)
-; Lcl frame size = 2888
+; Lcl frame size = 2056
G_M55736_IG01:
...
- sub rsp, 0xB48
+ sub rsp, 0x808
vzeroupper
mov rsi, rcx
lea rdi, [rsp+20H]
- mov ecx, 708
+ mov ecx, 500
xor rax, rax
rep stosd
-; Total bytes of code 7892, prolog size 42 for method JsonDocument:Parse(struct,struct,byref,byref)
+; Total bytes of code 6947, prolog size 42 for method JsonDocument:Parse(struct,struct,byref,byref) |
|
No regressions |
; Assembly listing for method <CopyToAsyncInternal>d__30:MoveNext():this
- ; Lcl frame size = 272
+ ; Lcl frame size = 192
...
- sub rsp, 272
+ sub rsp, 192
- lea rbp, [rsp+130H]
+ lea rbp, [rsp+E0H]
mov rsi, rcx
- lea rdi, [rbp-100H]
+ lea rdi, [rbp-B0H]
- mov ecx, 54
+ mov ecx, 34
xor rax, rax
rep stosd
mov rcx, rsi
- mov qword ptr [rbp-110H], rsp
+ mov qword ptr [rbp-C0H], rsp
...
-G_M4501_IG08:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-98H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-A8H], xmm0
-
-G_M4501_IG09:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-A8H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-58H], xmm0
-
-G_M4501_IG10:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-58H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-B8H], xmm0
-
-G_M4501_IG11:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-B8H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-38H], xmm0
+G_M4501_IG08:
+ movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-78H]
+ movdqu qword ptr [rbp-38H], xmm0
...
-G_M4501_IG28:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-C8H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-88H], xmm0
-
-G_M4501_IG29:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-88H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-D8H], xmm0
-
-G_M4501_IG30:
- movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-D8H]
- movdqu qword ptr [rbp-68H], xmm0
+G_M4501_IG25:
+ movdqu xmm0, qword ptr [rbp-88H]
+ movdqu qword ptr [rbp-58H], xmm0
-; Total bytes of code 1519, prolog size 54 for method <CopyToAsyncInternal>d__30:MoveNext():this
+; Total bytes of code 1439, prolog size 54 for method <CopyToAsyncInternal>d__30:MoveNext():this |
benaadams
force-pushed
the
copyprop-structs
branch
from
f2a0c9a
to
1ffd953
Compare
|
For |
|
For /cc @stephentoub |
|
For |
|
Sample change from Pipelines
|
|
/azp run coreclr-ci |
|
Commenter does not have sufficient privileges for PR 24915 in repo dotnet/coreclr |
|
Feeling like a second class citizen on coreclr 😄. cc @jkotas @AndyAyersMS @stephentoub can you kick the build |
|
/azp run coreclr-ci |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
Hmm... didn't restart the failed one |
I just kicked it manually in AzDo. |
| @@ -468,6 +849,10 @@ void Compiler::optVnCopyProp() | |||
|
|
|||
| optBlockCopyProp(block, &curSsaName); | |||
|
|
|||
| optCopyPropFoldCopyBlks(block); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you do not use curSsaName why do you need to put these in VN copy prop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Move it out to a simple block loop?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know. I'll have to take a close look at the problem you're trying to solve and figure out what might be a good solution, if any. My initial impression was that there are a bunch of LCL_FLDs involved and those are difficult to deal with in the current state of the JIT.
The only thing that is trivial is the example I already mentioned, the one with x2 = x0.f0;. But fixing that shouldn't require all this complication, it might be something that local assertion propagation could handle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it might be something that local assertion propagation could handle
Right -- seems like the cases we can easily handle (say an entire LCL_FLD source or dest for an unexposed local) would fit in pretty well in assertion prop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Happy for someone to try a different approach (or do this better); mostly am interested in the superfluous copies and the additional stack space they require going away,
| // Propagate backwards, picking up: | ||
| // | ||
| // x1 (def) = x0 (last use) | ||
| // x2 (def) = x1 (last use) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see why x0 and x1 need to be last-use.
x1 = x0
x2 = x1
is
x1 = x0
x2 = x0
when x1 is a local. Or at least a non volatile memory location.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd agree; but I'm not very familiar with the Jit code so thought I'd start with a conservative change where I just removed variables that didn't serve much function (purely pass-through); then follow up where the copy is aliasing as I assumed it would be more involved?
| op = op->AsIndir()->Addr()->gtGetOp1(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ((op->OperGet() == GT_LCL_VAR || op->OperGet() == GT_LCL_FLD)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see anything in this code that would make GT_LCL_FLD a valid optimization target, except in one particular case:
x0 = x1;
x2 = x0.f0;
that can usually be transformed into
x0 = x1;
x2 = x1.f0;
with some precautions in case x0 and x1 do not have the same type. I don't see what precautions have you taken to ensure that this and only this case is handled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this for the optCopyPropThroughCopyBlk version rather than optCopyPropFoldCopyBlks?
Which precautions would I need?
It currently checks the are the exact same size; and that both are last use so converts
(def) x0 = x1; (last use)
x2 = x0.f0; (last use)
to
x2 = x1.f0; (last use)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which precautions would I need?
For example, the following transform would be obviously incorrect (unless f0 happens to be the only field):
x0.f0 = x1.f0;
x2 = x0;
to
x0.f0 = x1.f0;
x2 = x1;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this is one of the LCL_FLDs it changes; removing V446 in its entirely
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for forward copy assertion for [006950] V446 @000003B1 by [006911] V444 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [006957] -A------R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [006955] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct V446 tmp426 d:1
N001 ( 3, 2) [006911] -------N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct V444 tmp424 u:1 (last use) $6c8
N003 ( 3, 4) [006966] -A--G---R--- * ASG byref $3b1
N002 ( 1, 1) [006965] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR byref V447 tmp427 d:1 $3b1
N001 ( 3, 4) [006950] ------------ \--* LCL_FLD byref V446 tmp426 u:1[+0] Fseq[_pointer, _value] (last use) $3b1
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [006957] ------------ * NOP void
( 3, 4) [006967] ------------ * STMT void (IL ???... ???)
N003 ( 3, 3) [006966] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG byref $3b1
N002 ( 1, 1) [006965] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR byref V447 tmp427 d:1 $3b1
N001 ( 3, 2) [008934] -------N---- \--* LCL_VAR byref V444 tmp424 (last use)
Which is why I'm using creation and death and checking all the sizes are the same; if its created in one statement for a copy and then dies in the next, it removes it and uses the original
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For <ReadAsyncInternal>d__66:MoveNext to does the following conversions
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [002494] V112 @00000003 by [002488] V112 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [002491] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [002490] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N001 ( 3, 2) [002488] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V112 tmp93 u:2 (last use) $456
N007 ( 13, 15) [002503] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N006 ( 6, 7) [002502] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N005 ( 3, 5) [002501] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $8bd
N004 ( 3, 4) [002494] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V112 tmp93 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N003 ( 6, 7) [002499] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c5
N002 ( 3, 5) [002495] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [002498] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:3[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c5
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [002491] ------------ * NOP void
( 13, 15) [002504] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x2CE... ???)
N005 ( 10, 10) [002503] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005873] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N003 ( 6, 7) [002499] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c5
N002 ( 3, 5) [002495] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [002498] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:3[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c5
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [002426] V09 @00000003 by [002498] V09 @00000003.
***** (before)
N005 ( 10, 10) [002503] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005873] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N003 ( 6, 7) [002499] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c5
N002 ( 3, 5) [002495] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [002498] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:3[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c5
N003 ( 7, 5) [002427] -A------R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [002426] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct V09 loc8 d:3
N001 ( 3, 2) [002424] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V108 tmp89 u:2 (last use) $588
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 10, 10) [002503] ------------ * NOP void
( 7, 5) [000268] ------------ * STMT void (IL ???... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [002427] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005874] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N001 ( 3, 2) [002424] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V108 tmp89 u:2 (last use) $588
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [002465] V108 @00000003 by [002424] V108 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [002427] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005874] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N001 ( 3, 2) [002424] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V108 tmp89 u:2 (last use) $588
N005 ( 10, 10) [002472] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 6, 7) [002471] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N003 ( 3, 5) [002470] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $8bc
N002 ( 3, 4) [002465] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V108 tmp89 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N001 ( 3, 2) [002467] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V107 tmp88 $455
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [002427] ------------ * NOP void
( 10, 10) [002473] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x2C4... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [002472] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005875] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V16 loc15
N001 ( 3, 2) [002467] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V107 tmp88 $455
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [001471] V64 @00000003 by [001465] V64 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001468] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [001467] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N001 ( 3, 2) [001465] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V64 tmp45 u:2 (last use) $45c
N007 ( 13, 15) [001480] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N006 ( 6, 7) [001479] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N005 ( 3, 5) [001478] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $c4d
N004 ( 3, 4) [001471] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V64 tmp45 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N003 ( 6, 7) [001476] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c6
N002 ( 3, 5) [001472] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001475] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:4[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c6
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [001468] ------------ * NOP void
( 13, 15) [001481] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x18C... ???)
N005 ( 10, 10) [001480] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005876] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N003 ( 6, 7) [001476] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c6
N002 ( 3, 5) [001472] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001475] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:4[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c6
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [001403] V09 @00000003 by [001475] V09 @00000003.
***** (before)
N005 ( 10, 10) [001480] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005876] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N003 ( 6, 7) [001476] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c6
N002 ( 3, 5) [001472] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001475] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:4[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c6
N003 ( 7, 5) [001404] -A------R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [001403] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct V09 loc8 d:4
N001 ( 3, 2) [001401] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V60 tmp41 u:2 (last use) $58c
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 10, 10) [001480] ------------ * NOP void
( 7, 5) [000562] ------------ * STMT void (IL ???... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001404] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005877] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N001 ( 3, 2) [001401] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V60 tmp41 u:2 (last use) $58c
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [001442] V60 @00000003 by [001401] V60 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001404] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005877] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N001 ( 3, 2) [001401] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V60 tmp41 u:2 (last use) $58c
N005 ( 10, 10) [001449] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 6, 7) [001448] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N003 ( 3, 5) [001447] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $c4c
N002 ( 3, 4) [001442] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V60 tmp41 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N001 ( 3, 2) [001444] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V59 tmp40 $45b
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [001404] ------------ * NOP void
( 10, 10) [001450] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x182... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001449] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005878] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V13 loc12
N001 ( 3, 2) [001444] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V59 tmp40 $45b
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [001056] V45 @00000003 by [001050] V45 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001053] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [001052] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N001 ( 3, 2) [001050] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V45 tmp26 u:2 (last use) $443
N007 ( 13, 15) [001065] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N006 ( 6, 7) [001064] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N005 ( 3, 5) [001063] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $190
N004 ( 3, 4) [001056] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V45 tmp26 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N003 ( 6, 7) [001061] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c0
N002 ( 3, 5) [001057] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001060] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:2[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c0
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [001053] ------------ * NOP void
( 13, 15) [001066] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x048... ???)
N005 ( 10, 10) [001065] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005879] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N003 ( 6, 7) [001061] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c0
N002 ( 3, 5) [001057] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001060] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:2[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c0
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [000988] V09 @00000003 by [001060] V09 @00000003.
***** (before)
N005 ( 10, 10) [001065] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 3, 2) [005879] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N003 ( 6, 7) [001061] n---G------- \--* IND struct $5c0
N002 ( 3, 5) [001057] ----G------- \--* ADDR byref $18f
N001 ( 3, 4) [001060] -------N---- \--* LCL_FLD struct V09 loc8 u:2[+0] Fseq[_value] (last use) $5c0
N003 ( 7, 5) [000989] -A------R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [000988] D------N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct V09 loc8 d:2
N001 ( 3, 2) [000986] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V41 tmp22 u:2 (last use) $581
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 10, 10) [001065] ------------ * NOP void
( 7, 5) [000790] ------------ * STMT void (IL ???... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [000989] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005880] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N001 ( 3, 2) [000986] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V41 tmp22 u:2 (last use) $581
CopyBlk based forward copy assertion for reverse copy assertion for [001027] V41 @00000003 by [000986] V41 @00000003.
***** (before)
N003 ( 7, 5) [000989] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005880] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N001 ( 3, 2) [000986] ------------ \--* LCL_VAR struct V41 tmp22 u:2 (last use) $581
N005 ( 10, 10) [001034] -A--G---R--- * ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N004 ( 6, 7) [001033] n----------- +--* BLK(16) struct
N003 ( 3, 5) [001032] ------------ | \--* ADDR byref $18e
N002 ( 3, 4) [001027] D------N---- | \--* LCL_FLD struct V41 tmp22 d:2[+0] Fseq[_value]
N001 ( 3, 2) [001029] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V40 tmp21 $442
Copy propagated to:
***** (after)
N001 ( 7, 5) [000989] ------------ * NOP void
( 10, 10) [001035] ------------ * STMT void (IL 0x03E... ???)
N003 ( 7, 5) [001034] -A--G---R--- \--* ASG struct (copy) $VN.Void
N002 ( 3, 2) [005881] D---G--N---- +--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V07 loc6
N001 ( 3, 2) [001029] ----G--N---- \--* LCL_VAR struct(AX) V40 tmp21 $442
Stupid me, I forgot to add the "base" LCL_FLD offset to the new LCL_FLDs. |
|
Similar complications over in assertion prop -- the assertion needs to record the field seq and offset, and make sure all this gets updated. |
I suppose you mean that |
Your update fixes it nicely master...mikedn:copy-block-lcl-fld pmi diffs |
|
Was thinking of recording field seq and offset in the assertion... this lays the groundwork for general copy prop ability through unaliased DNER struct fields but I was thinking we'd only leverage it for struct copy prop early on (I think local prop already has this restriction, so it doesn't arbitrarily extend lifetimes). In my #18542 repro case the middle copy is not yet generating a copy assertion as it ends up as a more complex tree: This breaks the assertion copy chain logic. We could work harder on canonicalizing struct copy trees or generalize assertion gen and prop to handle these cases. Seems like the former is the way to go. |
|
Seems like |
|
An non-async pattern that also exhibits these shuffles is the following (from the Span tests) private static int DoSpan()
{
bool result = true;
for (int length = 2; length < 32; length++)
{
char[] a = new char[length];
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
a[i] = 'a';
}
a[length - 1] = ' ';
string s1 = new string(a);
ReadOnlySpan<char> ros = s1.AsSpan();
result &= ros.Slice(0, length - 1).SequenceEqual(ros.Trim());
result &= ros.SequenceEqual(ros.TrimStart());
result &= ros.Slice(0, length - 1).SequenceEqual(ros.TrimEnd());
Span<char> span = new Span<char>(a);
result &= span.Slice(0, length - 1).SequenceEqual(span.Trim());
result &= span.SequenceEqual(span.TrimStart());
result &= span.Slice(0, length - 1).SequenceEqual(span.TrimEnd());
Memory<char> mem = new Memory<char>(a);
result &= mem.Slice(0, length - 1).Span.SequenceEqual(mem.Trim().Span);
result &= mem.Span.SequenceEqual(mem.TrimStart().Span);
result &= mem.Slice(0, length - 1).Span.SequenceEqual(mem.TrimEnd().Span);
ReadOnlyMemory<char> rom = new ReadOnlyMemory<char>(a);
result &= rom.Slice(0, length - 1).Span.SequenceEqual(rom.Trim().Span);
result &= rom.Span.SequenceEqual(rom.TrimStart().Span);
result &= rom.Slice(0, length - 1).Span.SequenceEqual(rom.TrimEnd().Span);
}
return result ? 1 : 0;
}Though this PR didn't pick some of them up as they had intervening statements |
Local copy prop can get past this (at least within a block) As for my changes... rationalize is not quite ready to handle LCL_FLD top level structs (expects them to live under BLK/OBJ). Probably not too hard to fix. Work in progress here: AndyAyersMS@21aa811 But I think we can see getting assertion based copy prop to handle these copy cases will require a number of enabling changes. And raises questions about how far we could or should take this. Perhaps it is time to step back and reconcile this effort with the work planned for first class structs. We have some good examples now of places where we organically see struct copies and copy chains. cc @CarolEidt. |
|
Other one is the new private static void DoJson()
{
using (JsonDocument doc = JsonDocument.Parse("[true,false]"))
{ }
}Which for Not sure how many are static copies vs mutable data however |
That should be possible on the RHS of a |
|
Sorry to be late to this party - what a great conversation! Interestingly, I've been looking at copyprop in the context of #24912 (see my comment here: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/24912#issuecomment-499901356), and it clearly needs some improvement. It seems to me that it should be able to handle these cases without requiring two passes, though I haven't done enough analysis/experimentation to be totally confident of that. Extending it to handle fields seems to be valuable and logical. I'm eager for #21705 as I think that will really improve our ability to better normalize struct handling with that of primitive value types, and I think that's where we should start after 3.0. I doubt that it's reasonable to consider any of this before 3.0 is branched (@AndyAyersMS would you agree?) but one thing that would be useful would be to capture the test cases so that we don't lose track of them - perhaps we could add a tests/src/JIT/Directed/copyprop directory. |
Yes, I agree. Hopefully that day is not too far off. In the meantime we can still experiment.... |
|
Forgot I had already worked up code to have assertion prop handle struct indirs... let me dust that off and add LCL_FLD support to it. |
It looks like I'm not the only one sitting on mountain of branches and stashes containing various experiments 😄 |
True enough -- the main CoreCLR repo I work in has 342 branches, most of them mine. I try to push the more interesting ones up to my public fork. It only has 156 branches. Probably a good number are branches that got merged that I never got around to deleting. I really need some better way to keep track of them all. |
Some git UIs (eg GitExtensions, which is written in C# 😉) support a tree view if you structure your branch names with Example with GitExtensions
|
|
Integrated that and get a bit further. Now we're more flexible about consuming struct equality assertions during local prop, but still not flexible enough about producing them. Part of the challenge here is the variety of tree shapes we see during morph. We really should try to produce canonical forms earlier. |
Well, I have a stash for that too, it produces |
|
FWIW this commit generates Of course, for structs it keeps the I'm going to look into support struct typed |
|
While working on enabling struct typed LCL_FLDs I noticed that copies involving struct promotion aren't the only cases where we end up using INDs to access local variables, this also happens when copying register sized structs. The generated IR is: and the generated asm is: 488D442470 lea rax, bword ptr [rsp+70H]
8B00 mov eax, dword ptr [rax]
488D942480000000 lea rdx, bword ptr [rsp+80H]
8902 mov dword ptr [rdx], eaxThe never ending LEA saga. And this happens in a case where you'd think that things should work just fine (register sized structs). Oh well, not sure how this should be handled. Probably |
|
@CarolEidt How do you feel about a serious refactoring of |
|
FWIW I gathered various changes I'm working on and included them in one my WIP PRs so they go through testing:
So far tests passed. Next thing will be the fun stuff - struct typed LCL_FLDs on the LHS of ASG. |
I would be very happy to see a good refactoring of the struct-related |
OK, the monster PR (#21711) includes that too. In fact it includes almost all the struct related work I have so far. Trying to get something working end to end before starting to split it into more manageable PRs. |
|
Thank you for your contribution. As announced in dotnet/coreclr#27549 this repository will be moving to dotnet/runtime on November 13. If you would like to continue working on this PR after this date, the easiest way to move the change to dotnet/runtime is:
|
BruceForstall
added
the
post-consolidation
|
Thank you for your contribution. As announced in #27549 the dotnet/runtime repository will be used going forward for changes to this code base. Closing this PR as no more changes will be accepted into master for this repository. If you’d like to continue working on this change please move it to dotnet/runtime. |
Propagate through struct copies backwards, picking up:
Converting to
Next, propagate forwards through struct copies for usage, picking up:
Converting to
Example change to
<ReadBlockAsyncInternal>d__20:MoveNext():thisWhile it resolves almost all the copies in
awaiting ValueTasks (and all the copies in the sample in https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/18542#issuecomment-497850725) in async/await one remains (as above) 😢And
Sample change from Pipelines
<ReadAsyncInternal>d__23:MoveNext():thisResolves: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/18542
Is a bit messy, but seeking feedback (assuming tests pass) /cc @CarolEidt @AndyAyersMS @mikedn @stephentoub