[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] ARM64: Fix LDP/STP fusion (again).

[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] ARM64: Fix LDP/STP fusion (again).

[Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches]

From: Mike Pall <mike>

Reported and analyzed by Zhongwei Yao. Fix by Peter Cawley.

(cherry picked from commit b8c6ccd50c61b7a2df5123ddc5a85ac7d089542b)

Assume we have stores/loads from the pointer with offset +488 and -16.
The lower bits of the offset are the same as for the offset (488 + 8).
This leads to the incorrect fusion of these instructions:
| str   x20, [x21, 488]
| stur  x20, [x21, -16]
to the following instruction:
| stp   x20, x20, [x21, 488]

This patch prevents this fusion by more accurate offset comparison.

Sergey Kaplun:
* added the description and the test for the problem

Part of tarantool/tarantool#11691
---

Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/skaplun/lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion
Related issues:
* https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/11691
* https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1075

 src/lj_emit_arm64.h                           |  17 ++-
 ...75-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion.test.lua | 129 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion.test.lua

diff --git a/src/lj_emit_arm64.h b/src/lj_emit_arm64.h
index 5c1bc372..9dd92c40 100644
--- a/src/lj_emit_arm64.h
+++ b/src/lj_emit_arm64.h
@@ -121,6 +121,17 @@ static int emit_checkofs(A64Ins ai, int64_t ofs)
   }
 }
 
+static LJ_AINLINE uint32_t emit_lso_pair_candidate(A64Ins ai, int ofs, int sc)
+{
+  if (ofs >= 0) {
+    return ai | A64F_U12(ofs>>sc);  /* Subsequent lj_ror checks ofs. */
+  } else if (ofs >= -256) {
+    return (ai^A64I_LS_U) | A64F_S9(ofs & 0x1ff);
+  } else {
+    return A64F_D(31);  /* Will mismatch prev. */
+  }
+}
+
 static void emit_lso(ASMState *as, A64Ins ai, Reg rd, Reg rn, int64_t ofs)
 {
   int ot = emit_checkofs(ai, ofs), sc = (ai >> 30) & 3;
@@ -132,11 +143,9 @@ static void emit_lso(ASMState *as, A64Ins ai, Reg rd, Reg rn, int64_t ofs)
     uint32_t prev = *as->mcp & ~A64F_D(31);
     int ofsm = ofs - (1<<sc), ofsp = ofs + (1<<sc);
     A64Ins aip;
-    if (prev == (ai | A64F_N(rn) | A64F_U12(ofsm>>sc)) ||
-	prev == ((ai^A64I_LS_U) | A64F_N(rn) | A64F_S9(ofsm&0x1ff))) {
+    if (prev == emit_lso_pair_candidate(ai | A64F_N(rn), ofsm, sc)) {
       aip = (A64F_A(rd) | A64F_D(*as->mcp & 31));
-    } else if (prev == (ai | A64F_N(rn) | A64F_U12(ofsp>>sc)) ||
-	       prev == ((ai^A64I_LS_U) | A64F_N(rn) | A64F_S9(ofsp&0x1ff))) {
+    } else if (prev == emit_lso_pair_candidate(ai | A64F_N(rn), ofsp, sc)) {
       aip = (A64F_D(rd) | A64F_A(*as->mcp & 31));
       ofsm = ofs;
     } else {
diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion.test.lua
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c84c3b23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion.test.lua
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+local tap = require('tap')
+local ffi = require('ffi')
+
+-- This test demonstrates LuaJIT's incorrect emitting of LDP/STP
+-- instruction fused from LDR/STR with negative offset and
+-- positive offset with the same lower bits on arm64.
+-- See also https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/pull/1075.
+local test = tap.test('lj-1075-arm64-incorrect-ldp-stp-fusion'):skipcond({
+  ['Test requires JIT enabled'] = not jit.status(),
+})
+
+test:plan(6)
+
+-- Amount of iterations to compile and run the invariant part of
+-- the trace.
+local N_ITERATIONS = 4
+
+local EXPECTED = 42
+
+-- 4 slots of redzone for int64_t load/store.
+local REDZONE = 4
+local MASK_IMM7 = 0x7f
+local BUFLEN = (MASK_IMM7 + REDZONE) * 4
+local buf = ffi.new('unsigned char [' .. BUFLEN .. ']', 0)
+
+local function clear_buf()
+  ffi.fill(buf, ffi.sizeof(buf), 0)
+end
+
+-- Initialize the buffer with simple values.
+local function init_buf()
+  -- Limit to fill the buffer. 0 in the top part helps
+  -- to detect the issue.
+  local LIMIT = BUFLEN - 12
+  for i = 0, LIMIT - 1  do
+    buf[i] = i
+  end
+  for i = LIMIT, BUFLEN - 1  do
+    buf[i] = 0
+  end
+end
+
+jit.opt.start('hotloop=2')
+
+-- Assume we have stores/loads from the pointer with offset
+-- +488 and -16. The lower 7 bits of the offset (-16) >> 2 are
+-- 1111100. These bits are the same as for the offset (488 + 8).
+-- Thus, before the patch, these two instructions:
+-- | str   x20, [x21, #488]
+-- | stur  x20, [x21, #-16]
+-- are incorrectly fused to the:
+-- | stp   x20, x20, [x21, #488]
+
+-- Test stores.
+
+local start = ffi.cast('unsigned char *', buf)
+-- Use constants to allow optimization to take place.
+local base_ptr = start + 16
+for _ = 1, N_ITERATIONS do
+  -- Save the result only for the last iteration.
+  clear_buf()
+  -- These 2 accesses become `base_ptr + 488` and `base_ptr + 496`
+  -- on the trace before the patch.
+  ffi.cast('uint64_t *', base_ptr + 488)[0] = EXPECTED
+  ffi.cast('uint64_t *', base_ptr - 16)[0] = EXPECTED
+end
+
+test:is(buf[488 + 16], EXPECTED, 'correct store top value')
+test:is(buf[0], EXPECTED, 'correct store bottom value')
+
+-- Test loads.
+
+init_buf()
+
+local top, bottom
+for _ = 1, N_ITERATIONS do
+  -- These 2 accesses become `base_ptr + 488` and `base_ptr + 496`
+  -- on the trace before the patch.
+  top = ffi.cast('uint64_t *', base_ptr + 488)[0]
+  bottom = ffi.cast('uint64_t *', base_ptr - 16)[0]
+end
+
+test:is(top, 0xfffefdfcfbfaf9f8ULL, 'correct load top value')
+test:is(bottom, 0x706050403020100ULL, 'correct load bottom value')
+
+-- Another reproducer that is based on the snapshot restoring.
+-- Its advantage is avoiding FFI usage.
+
+-- Snapshot slots are restored in the reversed order.
+-- The recording order is the following (from the bottom of the
+-- trace to the top):
+-- - 0th  (ofs == -16) -- `f64()` replaced the `tail64()` on the
+--                         stack,
+-- - 63rd (ofs == 488) -- 1,
+-- - 64th (ofs == 496) -- 2.
+-- At recording, the instructions for the 0th and 63rd slots are
+-- merged like the following:
+-- | str   x3, [x19, #496]
+-- | stp   x2, x1, [x19, #488]
+-- The first store is dominated by the stp, so the restored value
+-- is incorrect.
+
+-- Function with 63 slots on the stack.
+local function f63()
+  -- 61 unused slots to avoid extra stores in between.
+  -- luacheck: no unused
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _, _
+  local _
+  return 1, 2
+end
+
+local function tail63()
+  return f63()
+end
+
+-- Record the trace.
+tail63()
+tail63()
+-- Run the trace.
+local one, two = tail63()
+test:is(one, 1, 'correct 1st value on stack')
+test:is(two, 2, 'correct 2nd value on stack')
+
+test:done(true)
-- 
2.51.0