$ go tool compile -m -m e.go
e.go:8: leaking param content: n
e.go:8: from n.left (dot of pointer) at e.go:9
e.go:8: from n.left.t (dot of pointer) at e.go:9
e.go:8: from n.t (star-dot-equals) at e.go:9
I believe that n should not escape here.
This arises in the compiler. It is one of the reasons that typecheck1's np argument escapes. (The new escape analysis explainer is very exciting.) 15% of the allocations in the compiler are *gc.Node, almost all of them due to moving *gc.Node parameters to the heap for calls to typecheck1. (After *gc.Node come gc.Nodes at 9%, gc.Node at 8.5%, *gc.Node at 5.5%, and string at 5%.)
This strikes me as hard to fix in the general case, but figured it was worth checking.
Escape analysis has a hard time with tree-like
structures (see #13493 and #14858).
This is unlikely to change.
As a result, when invoking a function that accepts
a **Node parameter, we usually allocate a *Node
on the heap. This happens a whole lot.
This CL changes functions from taking a **Node
to acting more like append: It both modifies
the input and returns a replacement for it.
Because of the cascading nature of escape analysis,
in order to get the benefits, I had to modify
almost all such functions. The remaining functions
are in racewalk and the backend. I would be happy
to update them as well in a separate CL.
This CL was created by manually updating the
function signatures and the directly impacted
bits of code. The callsites were then automatically
updated using a bespoke script:
For ease of reviewing and future understanding,
this CL is also broken down into four CLs,
mailed separately, which show the manual
and the automated changes separately.
They are CLs 20990, 20991, 20992, and 20993.
Passes toolstash -cmp.
name old time/op new time/op delta
Template 335ms ± 5% 324ms ± 5% -3.35% (p=0.000 n=23+24)
Unicode 176ms ± 9% 165ms ± 6% -6.12% (p=0.000 n=23+24)
GoTypes 1.10s ± 4% 1.07s ± 2% -2.77% (p=0.000 n=24+24)
Compiler 5.31s ± 3% 5.15s ± 3% -2.95% (p=0.000 n=24+24)
MakeBash 41.6s ± 1% 41.7s ± 2% ~ (p=0.586 n=23+23)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
Template 63.3MB ± 0% 62.4MB ± 0% -1.36% (p=0.000 n=25+23)
Unicode 42.4MB ± 0% 41.6MB ± 0% -1.99% (p=0.000 n=24+25)
GoTypes 220MB ± 0% 217MB ± 0% -1.11% (p=0.000 n=25+25)
Compiler 994MB ± 0% 973MB ± 0% -2.08% (p=0.000 n=24+25)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
Template 681k ± 0% 574k ± 0% -15.71% (p=0.000 n=24+25)
Unicode 518k ± 0% 413k ± 0% -20.34% (p=0.000 n=25+24)
GoTypes 2.08M ± 0% 1.78M ± 0% -14.62% (p=0.000 n=25+25)
Compiler 9.26M ± 0% 7.64M ± 0% -17.48% (p=0.000 n=25+25)
name old text-bytes new text-bytes delta
HelloSize 578k ± 0% 578k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
CmdGoSize 6.46M ± 0% 6.46M ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
name old data-bytes new data-bytes delta
HelloSize 128k ± 0% 128k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
CmdGoSize 281k ± 0% 281k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
name old exe-bytes new exe-bytes delta
HelloSize 921k ± 0% 921k ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
CmdGoSize 9.86M ± 0% 9.86M ± 0% ~ (all samples are equal)
Reviewed-by: Dave Cheney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.com>
I may be wrong, but this kind of inference may be impossible in the current model.
// What if n.left allocated on stack, and n.left.t also does not escape.// Here, if we not assume n param as leaking contents,// and if n.left happens to have shorter lifetime than n,// we will store dead pointer into n.t that violates memory// guarantees, as far as I can tell.n.t=n.left.t
So, the conservative (and safe) action is to leak param content.
Teach escape analysis to recognize these assignment patterns
as not causing the src to leak:
val.x = val.y
val.x[i] = val.y[j]
val.x1.x2 = val.x1.y2
Helps to avoid "leaking param" with assignments showed above.
The implementation is based on somewhat similiar xs=xs[a:b]
special case that is ignored by the escape analysis.
We may figure out more generalized version of this,
but this one looks like a safe step into that direction.
Run-TryBot: Iskander Sharipov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <email@example.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org>