From: sergos via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] ARM64: Fix assembly of HREFK.
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:26:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6CFA4388-CEBF-4C87-BDEF-03ADC713AA56@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211027130222.15625-1-skaplun@tarantool.org>
Hi!
I see the test is guess-based in term that number of traces should
be enough to trigger the situation. Is there any confirmation it
will happen at particular traces count?
Otherwise LGTM.
Sergos
> On 27 Oct 2021, at 16:02, Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Pall <mike>
>
> Reported by Jason Teplitz.
>
> (cherry picked from commit 06cd9fce7df440323647174f1ca4a01281ec8acd)
>
> LDR instruction with register offset [1] has a restriction, that the
> destination register must be different from the register used for offset
> base. HREFK IR emits LDR instruction for a load of node key to a
> register. Base register to offset contains a node address. The register
> holding the node address is not excluded from a allow set, when loading
> the key value to a new register, and may be chosen by the register
> allocator as a destination for the key value, which violates the
> aforementioned restriction.
>
> This patch excludes the node register from the allowing set in the
> allocation of register for a key value.
>
> Sergey Kaplun:
> * added the description and the test for the problem
>
> [1]: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0489/c/arm-and-thumb-instructions/memory-access-instructions/ldr-and-str--register-offset-
>
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#6548
> ---
>
> Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/skaplun/lj-357-arm64-hrefk
> Tarantool branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/skaplun/lj-357-arm64-hrefk
> LuaJIT issue: https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/357
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/6548
>
> src/lj_asm_arm64.h | 11 ++++----
> .../lj-357-arm64-hrefk.test.lua | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-357-arm64-hrefk.test.lua
>
> diff --git a/src/lj_asm_arm64.h b/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> index cc8c0c9d..da0ee4bb 100644
> --- a/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> +++ b/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> @@ -869,14 +869,12 @@ static void asm_hrefk(ASMState *as, IRIns *ir)
> int32_t ofs = (int32_t)(kslot->op2 * sizeof(Node));
> int32_t kofs = ofs + (int32_t)offsetof(Node, key);
> int bigofs = !emit_checkofs(A64I_LDRx, ofs);
> - RegSet allow = RSET_GPR;
> Reg dest = (ra_used(ir) || bigofs) ? ra_dest(as, ir, RSET_GPR) : RID_NONE;
> - Reg node = ra_alloc1(as, ir->op1, allow);
> - Reg key = ra_scratch(as, rset_clear(allow, node));
> - Reg idx = node;
> + Reg node = ra_alloc1(as, ir->op1, RSET_GPR);
> + Reg key, idx = node;
> + RegSet allow = rset_exclude(RSET_GPR, node);
> uint64_t k;
> lua_assert(ofs % sizeof(Node) == 0);
> - rset_clear(allow, key);
> if (bigofs) {
> idx = dest;
> rset_clear(allow, dest);
> @@ -892,7 +890,8 @@ static void asm_hrefk(ASMState *as, IRIns *ir)
> } else {
> k = ((uint64_t)irt_toitype(irkey->t) << 47) | (uint64_t)ir_kgc(irkey);
> }
> - emit_nm(as, A64I_CMPx, key, ra_allock(as, k, allow));
> + key = ra_scratch(as, allow);
> + emit_nm(as, A64I_CMPx, key, ra_allock(as, k, rset_exclude(allow, key)));
> emit_lso(as, A64I_LDRx, key, idx, kofs);
> if (bigofs)
> emit_opk(as, A64I_ADDx, dest, node, ofs, RSET_GPR);
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-357-arm64-hrefk.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-357-arm64-hrefk.test.lua
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..200d29f0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-357-arm64-hrefk.test.lua
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> +local tap = require('tap')
> +
> +-- Test file to demonstrate the incorrect JIT behaviour for HREFK
> +-- IR compilation on arm64.
> +-- See also https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/357.
> +local test = tap.test('lj-357-arm64-hrefk')
> +test:plan(2)
> +
> +jit.opt.start('hotloop=1', 'hotexit=1')
> +
> +local t = {hrefk = 0}
> +
> +-- XXX: Need to generate a bunch of side traces (starts a new one
> +-- when the hmask is changed) to wait, when the register allocator
> +-- chooses the same register as a base register for offset and
> +-- destination in LDR instruction.
> +local START = 2e3
> +local STOP = 1
> +for i = START, STOP, -1 do
> + t.hrefk = t.hrefk - 1
> + t[t.hrefk] = i
> +end
> +
> +test:is(t.hrefk, -START)
> +test:is(t[t.hrefk], STOP)
> +
> +os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1)
> --
> 2.31.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-30 10:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-27 13:02 Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2022-03-30 10:26 ` sergos via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2022-04-04 8:55 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2022-06-29 9:16 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches
2022-06-30 12:11 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6CFA4388-CEBF-4C87-BDEF-03ADC713AA56@tarantool.org \
--to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=sergos@tarantool.org \
--cc=skaplun@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] ARM64: Fix assembly of HREFK.' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox