Summary:
The instruction in non-text section can not be executed, so they will not affect performance.
In addition, their encoding values are treated as data, so we should not touch them.
Reviewers: MaskRay, reames, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Subscribers: annita.zhang, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77971
Summary:
Since D75300 has been landed, I want to support enhanced relaxation when we need to align branches and allow prefix padding. "Enhanced Relaxtion" means we allow an instruction that could not be traditionally relaxed to be emitted into RelaxableFragment so that we increase its length by adding prefixes for optimization.
The motivation is straightforward, RelaxFragment is mostly for relative jumps and we can not increase the length of jumps when we need to align them, so if we need to achieve D75300's purpose (reducing the bytes of nops) when need to align jumps, we have to make more instructions "relaxable".
Reviewers: reames, MaskRay, craig.topper, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, annita.zhang
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76286
Generalizes D62014 (R_386_NONE/R_X86_64_NONE).
Unlike ARM (D76746) and AArch64 (D76754), we cannot delete FK_NONE from
getFixupKindSize because FK_NONE is still used by R_386_TLS_DESC_CALL/R_X86_64_TLSDESC_CALL.
Summary:
There is a tiny logic error of D75300, making branch is not
correctly aligned with option -x86-pad-max-prefix-size
Reviewers: reames, MaskRay, craig.topper, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, annita.zhang
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76285
alignBranches is X86 specific, change the name in a
more general one since other target can do some state
chang before and after emitting the instruction.
Now that D75203 has landed and baked for a few days, extend the basic approach to prefix padding as well. The patch itself is fairly straight forward.
For the moment, this patch adds the functional support and some basic testing there of, but defaults to not enabling prefix padding. I want to be able to phrase a separate patch which adds the target specific reasoning and test it cleanly. I haven't decided whether I want to common it with the nop logic or not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75300
Lets us remove another SLM proc family flag usage.
This is NFC, but we should probably check whether atom/glm/knl? should be using this flag as well...
Summary:
Currently, a BoundaryAlign fragment may be inserted after the branch
that needs to be aligned to truncate the current fragment, this fragment is
unused at most of time. To avoid that, we can insert a new empty Data
fragment instead. Non-relaxable instruction is usually emitted into Data
fragment, so the inserted empty Data fragment will be reused at a high
possibility.
Reviewers: annita.zhang, reames, MaskRay, craig.topper, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: reames, LuoYuanke
Subscribers: llvm-commits, dexonsmith, hiraditya
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75438
Summary: X86 can reduce the bytes of NOP by padding instructions with prefixes to get a better peformance in some cases. So a private member function `determinePaddingPrefix` is added to determine which prefix is the most suitable.
Reviewers: annita.zhang, reames, MaskRay, craig.topper, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits, dexonsmith, hiraditya
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75357
If we have an explicit align directive, we currently default to emitting nops to fill the space. As discussed in the context of the prefix padding work for branch alignment (D72225), we're allowed to play other tricks such as extending the size of previous instructions instead.
This patch will convert near jumps to far jumps if doing so decreases the number of bytes of nops needed for a following align. It does so as a post-pass after relaxation is complete. It intentionally works without moving any labels or doing anything which might require another round of relaxation.
The point of this patch is mainly to mock out the approach. The optimization implemented is real, and possibly useful, but the main point is to demonstrate an approach for implementing such "pad previous instruction" approaches. The key notion in this patch is to treat padding previous instructions as an optional optimization, not as a core part of relaxation. The benefit to this is that we avoid the potential concern about increasing the distance between two labels and thus causing further potentially non-local code grown due to relaxation. The downside is that we may miss some opportunities to avoid nops.
For the moment, this patch only implements a small set of existing relaxations.. Assuming the approach is satisfactory, I plan to extend this to a broader set of instructions where there are obvious "relaxations" which are roughly performance equivalent.
Note that this patch *doesn't* change which instructions are relaxable. We may wish to explore that separately to increase optimization opportunity, but I figured that deserved it's own separate discussion.
There are possible downsides to this optimization (and all "pad previous instruction" variants). The major two are potentially increasing instruction fetch and perturbing uop caching. (i.e. the usual alignment risks) Specifically:
* If we pad an instruction such that it crosses a fetch window (16 bytes on modern X86-64), we may cause the decoder to have to trigger a fetch it wouldn't have otherwise. This can effect both decode speed, and icache pressure.
* Intel's uop caching have particular restrictions on instruction combinations which can fit in a particular way. By moving around instructions, we can both cause misses an change misses into hits. Many of the most painful cases are around branch density, so I don't expect this to be too bad on the whole.
On the whole, I expect to see small swings (i.e. the typical alignment change problem), but nothing major or systematic in either direction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75203
X86 has several instructions which are documented as enabling interrupts exactly one instruction *after* the one which changes the SS segment register. Inserting a nop between these two instructions allows an interrupt to arrive before the execution of the following instruction which changes semantic behaviour.
The list of instructions is documented in "Table 24-3. Format of Interruptibility State" in Volume 3c of the Intel manual. They basically all come down to different ways to write to the SS register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75359
Summary:
Currently the boundaryalign fragment caches its size during the process
of layout and then it is relaxed and update the size in each iteration. This
behaviour is unnecessary and ugly.
Reviewers: annita.zhang, reames, MaskRay, craig.topper, LuoYuanke, jyknight
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Subscribers: hiraditya, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75404
MCObjectStreamer is more suitable to create fragments than
X86AsmBackend, for example, the function getOrCreateDataFragment is
defined in MCObjectStreamer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75351
When bundle is enabled, data fragment itself has a space to emit NOP
to bundle-align instructions. The behaviour makes it impossible for
us to determine whether the macro fusion really happen when emitting
instructions. In addition, boundary-align fragment is also used to
emit NOPs to align instructions, currently using them together sometimes
makes code crazy.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75346
This moves all the logic of converting LLVM Triples to
MachO::CPU_(SUB_)TYPE from the specific target (Target)AsmBackend to
more convenient functions in lib/BinaryFormat.
This also gets rid of the separate two X86AsmBackend classes.
The previous attempt was to add it to libObject, but that adds an
unnecessary dependency to libObject from all the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74808
This moves all the logic of converting LLVM Triples to
MachO::CPU_(SUB_)TYPE from the specific target (Target)AsmBackend to
more convenient functions in libObject.
This also gets rid of the separate two X86AsmBackend classes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74808
The commit https://reviews.llvm.org/rG14fc20ca6 added some options to the X86
back end that cause the help text for opt/llc to become much harder to read.
The issue is that the cl::value_desc is part of the option name and is used to
compute the indentation of the description text (i.e. the maximum length option
name is what everything aligns to). Since the commit puts a large number of
characters into that text, everything is aligned to that width.
This patch just reformats the option so that the description is contained in the
description and the list of possible values is within the angle brackets.
Note: the readability issue of the helptext was fixed in commit
70cbf8c71c, but the re-formatting wasn't
added on that commit so I am still committing this.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73267
Long `cl::value_desc()` is added right after the flag name,
before `cl::desc()` column. And thus the `cl::desc()` column,
for all flags, is padded to the right,
which makes the output unreadable.
Summary:
This is a follow up on https://reviews.llvm.org/D71473#inline-647262.
There's a caveat here that `Align(1)` relies on the compiler understanding of `Log2_64` implementation to produce good code. One could use `Align()` as a replacement but I believe it is less clear that the alignment is one in that case.
Reviewers: xbolva00, courbet, bollu
Subscribers: arsenm, dylanmckay, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, kbarton, jrtc27, atanasyan, jsji, Jim, kerbowa, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73099
This flag was originally part of D70157, but was removed as we carved away pieces of the review. Since we have the nop support checked in, and it appears mature(*), I think it's time to add the master flag. For now, it will default to nop padding, but once the prefix padding support lands, we'll update the defaults.
(*) I can now confirm that downstream testing of the changes which have landed to date - nop padding and compiler support for suppressions - is passing all of the functional testing we've thrown at it. There might still be something lurking, but we've gotten enough coverage to be confident of the basic approach.
Note that the new flag can be used either when assembling an .s file, or when using the integrated assembler directly from the compiler. The later will use all of the suppression mechanism and should always generate correct code. We don't yet have assembly syntax for the suppressions, so passing this directly to the assembler w/a raw .s file may result in broken code. Use at your own risk.
Also note that this isn't the wiring for the clang option. I think the most recent review for that is D72227, but I've lost track, so that might be off.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72738
As discussed heavily in the original review (D70157), there's a need for the compiler to be able to selective suppress padding (either nop or prefix) to respect assumptions about the meaning of labels and instructions in generated code.
Rather than wait for syntax to be finalized - which appears to be a very slow process - this patch focuses on the compiler use case and *only* worries about the integrated assembler. To my knowledge, this covers all cases mentioned to date for clang/JIT support.
For testing purposes, I wired it up so that if the integrated assembler was using autopadding for branch alignment (e.g. enabled at command line) then the textual assembly output would contain a comment for each location where padding was enabled or disabled. This seemed like the least painful choice overall.
Note that the result of this patch effective disables the jcc errata mitigation for many constructs (statepoints, implicit null checks, xray, etc...) which is non ideal. It is at least *correct* and should allow us to enable the mitigation for the compiler. Once that's done, and a few other items are worked through, we probably want to come back to this an explore a bundling based approach instead so that we can pad instructions while keeping labels in the right place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72303
Change the type of X86AlignBranchBoundary from cl::opt<uint64_t> to
cl::opt<unsigned> since the template class cl::opt is only instantiated with
type unsigned, int, std::string, char and bool.
Demote member functions to static functions where possible
Use early continue/early return to reduce nesting
Clarify comments slightly.
Reuse previously define expression in one case.
Should have caught this in review, but only noticed when addressing post commit style items. We were creating a new instance of the X86MCInstrInfo class, and then never reclaiming the memory. This wasn't even conditional on the new off by default flags, so it was an unconditional leak.
WARNING: If you're looking at this patch because you're looking for a full
performace mitigation of the Intel JCC Erratum, this is not it!
This is a preliminary patch on the patch towards mitigating the performance
regressions caused by Intel's microcode update for Jump Conditional Code
Erratum. For context, see:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000055650.html
The patch adds the required assembler infrastructure and command line options
needed to exercise the logic for INTERNAL TESTING. These are NOT public flags,
and should not be used for anything other than LLVM's own testing/debugging
purposes. They are likely to change both in spelling and meaning.
WARNING: This patch is knowingly incorrect in some cornercases. We need, and
do not yet provide, a mechanism to selective enable/disable the padding.
Conversation on this will continue in parellel with work on extending this
infrastructure to support prefix padding.
The goal here is to have the assembler align specific instructions such that
they neither cross or end at a 32 byte boundary. The impacted instructions are:
a. Conditional jump.
b. Fused conditional jump.
c. Unconditional jump.
d. Indirect jump.
e. Ret.
f. Call.
The new options for llvm-mc are:
-x86-align-branch-boundary=NUM aligns branches within NUM byte boundary.
-x86-align-branch=TYPE[+TYPE...] specifies types of branches to align.
A new MCFragment type, MCBoundaryAlignFragment, is added, which may emit
NOP to align the fused/unfused branch.
alignBranchesBegin inserts MCBoundaryAlignFragment before instructions,
alignBranchesEnd marks the end of the branch to be aligned,
relaxBoundaryAlign grows or shrinks sizes of NOP to align the target branch.
Nop padding is disabled when the instruction may be rewritten by the linker,
such as TLS Call.
Process Note: I am landing a patch by skan as it has been LGTMed, and
continuing to iterate on the review is simply slowing us down at this point.
We can and will continue to iterate in tree.
Patch By: skan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70157
Fix for PR24072:
X86 instructions jrcxz/jecxz/jcxz performs short jumps if rcx/ecx/cx register is 0
The maximum relative offset for a forward short jump is 127 Bytes (0x7F).
The maximum relative offset for a backward short jump is 128 Bytes (0x80).
Gnu assembler warns when the distance of the jump exceeds the maximum but llvm-as does not.
Patch by Konstantin Belochapka and Alexey Lapshin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70652
Summary:
The functions different in two ways:
- getLLVMRegNum could return both "eh" and "other" dwarf register
numbers, while getLLVMRegNumFromEH only returned the "eh" number.
- getLLVMRegNum asserted if the register was not found, while the second
function returned -1.
The second distinction was pretty important, but it was very hard to
infer that from the function name. Aditionally, for the use case of
dumping dwarf expressions, we needed a function which can work with both
kinds of number, but does not assert.
This patch solves both of these issues by merging the two functions into
one, returning an Optional<unsigned> value. While the same thing could
be achieved by adding an "IsEH" argument to the (renamed)
getLLVMRegNumFromEH function, it seemed better to avoid the confusion of
two functions and put the choice of asserting into the hands of the
caller -- if he checks the Optional value, he can safely process
"untrusted" input, and if he blindly dereferences the Optional, he gets
the assertion.
I've updated all call sites to the new API, choosing between the two
options according to the function they were calling originally, except
that I've updated the usage in DWARFExpression.cpp to use the "safe"
method instead, and added a test case which would have previously
triggered an assertion failure when processing (incorrect?) dwarf
expressions.
Reviewers: dsanders, arsenm, JDevlieghere
Subscribers: wdng, aprantl, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67154
llvm-svn: 372710
This can be used to create references among sections. When --gc-sections
is used, the referenced section will be retained if the origin section
is retained.
See R_MIPS_NONE (D13659), R_ARM_NONE (D61992), R_AARCH64_NONE (D61973) for similar changes.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62014
llvm-svn: 360983
Summary:
This avoids needing an isel pattern for each condition code. And it removes translation switches for converting between Jcc instructions and condition codes.
Now the printer, encoder and disassembler take care of converting the immediate. We use InstAliases to handle the assembly matching. But we print using the asm string in the instruction definition. The instruction itself is marked IsCodeGenOnly=1 to hide it from the assembly parser.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, courbet, gchatelet, RKSimon
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: MatzeB, qcolombet, eraman, hiraditya, arphaman, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60228
llvm-svn: 357802
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Shengchen Kan