-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8341831: PhaseCFG::insert_anti_dependences asserts with "no loads" #21455
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
👋 Welcome back iveresov! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@veresov 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 25 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 |
Summary: Relax assert to deal with CacheWB nodes
6cb7eb7
to
b8e0d8b
Compare
Webrevs
|
@veresov Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information. |
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.
Please add comment into code explaining change.
Done. |
LoadStore nodes should have the same issue. Why they are not affected? |
Because LoadStore is an official store. It consumes a memory state and produces memory state. CacheWB is not really a store, that is it doesn't produce memory effects from the perspective of the backend (its match rule is not a Set). It's hard to tell what's the best way to model it, so I just decided not to mess with its semantics right now. |
Okay |
Should it be treated like a memory barrier? |
I'm not sure why it's not, I guess they wanted a more relaxed behavior? It's more like the opposite of prefetch really. I didn't want to touch the semantics of it in this bug fix because it feels like it will likely open another can of worms. |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit a8a8b2d.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
CacheWB
nodes are peculiar in a sense that they both are anti-dependent and produce memory. I think it's reasonable to relax the assert ininsert_anti_dependences()
to work around their properties.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21455/head:pull/21455
$ git checkout pull/21455
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/21455
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/21455/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 21455
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 21455
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21455.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment