[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 1/2] Add support for full-range 64 bit lightuserdata.
Sergey Ostanevich
sergos at tarantool.org
Sun Aug 1 19:25:41 MSK 2021
Hi! Thanks for the patch!
Some minor message fixes, one great gag from Mike’s code and a
test request.
Regards,
Sergos
>
> The new commit message is the following:
>
> ===================================================================
> Add support for full-range 64 bit lightuserdata.
>
> (cherry picked from commit e9af1abec542e6f9851ff2368e7f196b6382a44c)
>
> LuaJIT uses special NaN-tagging technique to store internal type on
> the Lua stack. In case LJ_GC64 first 13 bits are set in special NaN
^^^^^^^ ^
In case of the
> type (0xfff8...). FPU generates the only one type. The next 4 bits are
^^^^^^^^^^^
Which one and how is it relevant?
> used for an internal LuaJIT type of object on stack. The next 47 bits
> are used for storing this object's content. For userdata, it is its
> address. In case arm64 the pointer can have more than 47 significant
^^^^^
For
> bits [1]. In this case the error BADLU error is raised.
>
> For the support of full 64-bit range lightuserdata pointers two new
> fields in GCState are added:
>
> `lightudseg` - vector of segments of lightuserdata. Each element keeps
> 32-bit value. 25 MSB equal to MSB of lightuserdata address, the rest are
^
64bit
> filled with zeros. The length of the vector is power of 2.
>
> `lightudnum` - the length - 1 of aforementioned vector (up to 255).
>
> When lightuserdata is pushed on the stack, if its segment is not stored
> in vector new value is appended on top of this vector. The maximum
^^^^^^^^^ to
At first I want you to put it as ’not found’ instead of ’not stored’.
Then I start thinking over ‘on top’ for a vector and I got a strange
feeling...
Now tell me, every time you put a LUD pointer to stack you have to roll
over all present segments in this '>>>' plain loop below?
--- a/src/lj_api.c
+++ b/src/lj_api.c
+#if LJ_64
+static void *lightud_intern(lua_State *L, void *p)
+{
+ global_State *g = G(L);
+ uint64_t u = (uint64_t)p;
+ uint32_t up = lightudup(u);
+ uint32_t *segmap = mref(g->gc.lightudseg, uint32_t);
+ MSize segnum = g->gc.lightudnum;
+ if (segmap) {
+ MSize seg;
>>> + for (seg = 0; seg <= segnum; seg++)
>>> + if (segmap[seg] == up) /* Fast path. */
>>> + return (void *)(((uint64_t)seg << LJ_LIGHTUD_BITS_LO) | lightudlo(u));
+ segnum++;
+ }
+ if (!((segnum-1) & segnum) && segnum != 1) {
+ if (segnum >= (1 << LJ_LIGHTUD_BITS_SEG)) lj_err_msg(L, LJ_ERR_BADLU);
+ lj_mem_reallocvec(L, segmap, segnum, segnum ? 2*segnum : 2u, uint32_t);
+ setmref(g->gc.lightudseg, segmap);
+ }
+ g->gc.lightudnum = segnum;
+ segmap[segnum] = up;
+ return (void *)(((uint64_t)segnum << LJ_LIGHTUD_BITS_LO) | lightudlo(u));
+}
+#endif
+
Can’t help to laugh at Mike’s /* Fast path */, brilliant isn’t it?
Perhaps addition of a new segment is not so often - and is counted to 256 -
so we can easily sort the array each time to make it log(n) rather (n) for
each lua_pushlightuserdata()?
> <snipped>
>
> See the iterative patch below.
>
> ===================================================================
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-49-bad-lightuserdata.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-49-bad-lightuserdata.test.lua
This one tests the LUD push/pop to/fro stack. How about those
> all internal usage of lightuserdata (for hooks,
> profilers, built-in package, IR and so on) is changed to special values
> on Lua Stack.
Can you add at least _some_ test to verify memprof is fine?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/attachments/20210801/0da05a73/attachment.htm>
More information about the Tarantool-patches
mailing list