-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8307572: AArch64: Vector registers are clobbered by some macroassemblers #13895
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
I found that MacroAssembler::arrays_equals() would call stubcode, which may use vector registers. However, the call site in match rule does not claim the use of vector registers. Since c2 will allocate v16-v31 first [1], it's rare that using of v0-v7 will cause problem, but I did create a test case to expose the bug. Apart from arrays_equals, I also checked other macroassemblers, and found several similar issues. Fixed by claiming those vector register being killed in match rules call sites, which should have minimal performance impact compared to always saving/restoring those vector registers, since those V0-Vx registers are rarely allocated and live cross the macroassembler call. A jtreg test case is also added to demonstrate the failure. Test will fail without this patch, and pass with this patch. Test: I tried to update the allocation order in [1] to allocate V0-V15 first and then V16-V31, and full jtreg tests passed with the allocation order changed. I have also eyeballed and checked other macroassembler calls, and other macroassembler calls seemed fine. [1] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64.ad#L424 Change-Id: I0feb0c3f3761732a642b3080eb383e0d6ce77825
👋 Welcome back njian! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great catch, thanks. Does this one need backports?
@nsjian This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 74 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
I think so. I will handle the backports as well. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work Ningsheng!
Thanks for the review! @theRealAph @adinn |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 33d9a85.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
I found that MacroAssembler::arrays_equals() would call stubcode, which may use vector registers. However, the call site in match rule does not claim the use of vector registers. Since c2 will allocate v16-v31 first [1], it's rare that using of v0-v7 will cause problem, but I did create a test case to expose the bug.
Apart from arrays_equals, I also checked other macroassemblers, and found several similar issues. Fixed by claiming those vector register being killed in match rules call sites, which should have minimal performance impact compared to always saving/restoring those vector registers, since those V0-Vx registers are rarely allocated and live cross the macroassembler call.
A jtreg test case is also added to demonstrate the failure. Test will fail without this patch, and pass with this patch.
Test: I tried to update the allocation order in [1] to allocate V0-V15 first and then V16-V31, and full jtreg tests passed with the allocation order changed. (I did found some test failures with this allocation order change without this patch). I have also eyeballed and checked other macroassembler calls, and others seemed fine.
[1] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64.ad#L424
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13895/head:pull/13895
$ git checkout pull/13895
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/13895
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13895/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 13895
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 13895
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13895.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment