Skip to content
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

Generator size: borrowed variables are assumed live across following yield points #59087

Open
Matthias247 opened this Issue Mar 11, 2019 · 13 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@Matthias247
Copy link
Contributor

Matthias247 commented Mar 11, 2019

Maybe a duplicate of #52924, but maybe also something else.

I observed that the sizes of Futures generated by async fns can grow exponentially.
The following code shows an async fn, which produces a 1kB future. Each layering in another async fn doubles it's size:

#![feature(async_await, futures_api, await_macro)]

async fn i_am_1kb() -> bool
{
    let x: [u8; 1*1024] = [0; 1*1024];
    await!(async{});
    let _sum: u8 = x.iter().sum();
    true
}

fn main() {
    let fut1 = i_am_1kb();
    dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&fut1));

    let composed_1 = async {
        let inner = i_am_1kb();
        await!(inner);
    };
    dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_1));

    let composed_2 = async {
        let inner = i_am_1kb();
        dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&inner));
        await!(inner);
    };
    dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_2));

    let composed_3 = async {
        let inner = async {
            let inner = async {
                await!(i_am_1kb());
            };
            dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&inner));
            await!(inner);
        };
        dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&inner));
        await!(inner);
    };
    dbg!(std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_3));
}

Output:

[src/main.rs:16] std::mem::size_of_val(&fut1) = 1032
[src/main.rs:22] std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_1) = 1036
[src/main.rs:29] std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_2) = 2072
[src/main.rs:44] std::mem::size_of_val(&composed_3) = 4168

It doesn't matter whether the statement between the future generation and await! references the future or not. A simply println("") will have the same effect.
Only if the future is directly awaited (as in composed_1) the size will stay constant.

cc @cramertj , @nikomatsakis , @Nemo157

@cramertj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramertj commented Mar 11, 2019

Closing as a sub-issue of #52924. (I've edited the top message in that thread to reference this one)

@cramertj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramertj commented Mar 11, 2019

@Nemo157

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Nemo157 commented Mar 11, 2019

There definitely seems to be something causing locals to be unnecessarily put into the generator struct instead of staying as true-locals. Using a simplified function (with the same i_am_1kb as above)

async fn composed() {
    let inner = i_am_1kb();
    { let _foo = &inner; }
    await!(inner);
}

and running cargo rustc -- -Z dump-mir=generator to dump the mir, the liveness analysis shows that inner is correctly considered dead after being moved to pinned in the await! macro (and so is not alive over a yield), but it is still being put in the generator.

@Zoxc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Zoxc commented Mar 11, 2019

@Nemo157 The generator transformation conservatively assumes that any borrow can be converted to a raw pointer and the locals can be accessed with that until their storage slot is dead. That's why inner is considered live during the await! here.

@cramertj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramertj commented Mar 11, 2019

Yeah, @eddyb and I discussed this at the all-hands, and that making a type implement Copy is actually a potential perf regression here, which is weird. For non-Copy types, you can assume no accesses after moving out of them, but for Copy types you can't necessarily do this.

@Nemo157

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Nemo157 commented Mar 11, 2019

Ok, so an optimisation to fix this example would be to add a less conservative check that can see when the borrow definitely wasn’t converted to a raw pointer. That seems relatively straightforward to check when the borrow never enters any unsafe code.

@cramertj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramertj commented Mar 11, 2019

add a less conservative check that can see when the borrow definitely wasn’t converted to a raw pointer

Note that for this to be very useful at all it would have to be able to see through functions (via MIR inlining) and intrinsics (e.g. size_of_val above).

@cramertj cramertj reopened this Mar 11, 2019

@cramertj cramertj changed the title async/await: Not directly awaiting an async fn doubles it's size Generator size: borrowed variables are assumed live across following yield points Mar 11, 2019

@Nemo157

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Nemo157 commented Mar 11, 2019

Can it not trust the lifetimes on safe functions signatures? size_of_val does not have a lifetime dependency so should be relied on to not stash a raw pointer to the reference away somewhere. (I guess this is an UCG question whether safe function boundaries are barriers that require safety to be upheld, and whether future unsafe code can allow prior safe code to violate lifetimes, i.e. is something like this sound or not).

@cramertj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cramertj commented Mar 11, 2019

No, lifetimes in function signatures cannot necessarily be used to determine the scope of accesses to the resulting pointer. Without a memory model it's completely unclear when accesses would or wouldn't be allowed to the underlying memory. @RalfJung's work on stacked borrows is the only thing I'm aware of that would allow proper analysis, and in general anywhere there's a ref-to-ptr conversion, all bets are sort of off.

@tmandry

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

tmandry commented Mar 11, 2019

I want to emphasize that this is still a problem even when the variable is not borrowed:

It doesn't matter whether the statement between the future generation and await! references the future or not. A simply println("") will have the same effect.

So there is likely progress to be made here without doing the analysis being discussed by @Nemo157 / @cramertj.

@Nemo157

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Nemo157 commented Mar 12, 2019

From skimming the MIR of

async fn composed() {
    let inner = i_am_1kb();
    { foo(); fn foo() { } }
    await!(inner);
}

it looks like that could be related to the unwind edge from the function call (and println! expands to a few function calls). Another optimization related to the one mentioned in #52924 that could fix this would be to suppress moving values where their lifetimes only intersect during the move, essentially re-using the same stack slot for both inner and pinned (from inside await!) and turning the move into a no-op.

(I tried a couple of other random snippets of code and couldn't see anything else done by println!() that caused the doubled size).

EDIT: Actually, because of how drop chains work it looks like it's going to be more complex than that since inner and pinned have overlapping lifetimes, I have a simpler example for which I'll try and create a chart of the MIR and open a separate issue about this.

@Nemo157

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

Nemo157 commented Mar 12, 2019

Opened #59123 about the unwinding and drop interaction.

@nikomatsakis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Mar 12, 2019

We discussed this issue and decided to label it as deferred for the purposes of stabilization -- it's a bit too broad. We might consider trying to fix specific instances of this problem. Certainly, to start, we would want to fix #52924 and revisit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.