Hi, Sergey!

thanks for the patch and a good explanation in the commit message!

LGTM

Sergey

On 7/24/25 12:04, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> From: Mike Pall <mike>
>
> Thanks to Peter Cawley.
>
> (cherry picked from commit 7cc53f0b85f834dfba1516ea79d59db463e856fa)
>
> Assume we have a trace for the several `setmetatable()` calls to the
> same table. This trace contains the following IR:
> | 0011          p64 FREF   0003  tab.meta
> | ...
> | 0018 x0    >  tab TNEW   0    0
> | 0019          tab TBAR   0003
> | 0020          tab FSTORE 0011  0018
>
> The expected mcode to be emitted for the last two IRs is the following:
> | 55626cffb0  ldrb  w30, [x19, 8] ; tab->marked
> | 55626cffb4  tst   w30, 0x4      ; Is black?
> | 55626cffb8  beq   0x626cffd0     ; Skip marking.
> | 55626cffbc  ldr   x27, [x20, 128]
> | 55626cffc0  and   w30, w30, 0xfffffffb
> | 55626cffc4  str   x19, [x20, 128]
> | 55626cffcc  strb  w30, [x19, 8]  ; tab->marked
> | 55626cffc8  str   x27, [x19, 24] ; tab->gclist
> | 55626cffd0  str   x0,  [x19, 32] ; tab->metatable
>
> But the last 2 instructions are fused into the following `stp`:
> | 55581dffd0  stp   x27, x0, [x19, 48]
> Hence, the GC propagation frontier back is done partially, since
> `str x27, [x19, 24]` is not skipped despite TBAR semantics. This leads
> to the incorrect value in the `gclist` and the segmentation fault during
> its traversal on GC step.
>
> This patch prevents this fusion via switching instruction for
> `tab->gclist` and `tab->marked` storing.
>
> Sergey Kaplun:
> * added the description and the test for the problem
>
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#11691
> ---
>   src/lj_asm_arm64.h                            |  3 +-
>   ...1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar.test.lua | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>   create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar.test.lua
>
> diff --git a/src/lj_asm_arm64.h b/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> index 5a6c60b7..9b3c0467 100644
> --- a/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> +++ b/src/lj_asm_arm64.h
> @@ -1271,8 +1271,9 @@ static void asm_tbar(ASMState *as, IRIns *ir)
>     Reg link = ra_scratch(as, rset_exclude(RSET_GPR, tab));
>     Reg mark = RID_TMP;
>     MCLabel l_end = emit_label(as);
> -  emit_lso(as, A64I_STRx, link, tab, (int32_t)offsetof(GCtab, gclist));
>     emit_lso(as, A64I_STRB, mark, tab, (int32_t)offsetof(GCtab, marked));
> +  /* Keep STRx in the middle to avoid LDP/STP fusion with surrounding code. */
> +  emit_lso(as, A64I_STRx, link, tab, (int32_t)offsetof(GCtab, gclist));
>     emit_setgl(as, tab, gc.grayagain);
>     emit_dn(as, A64I_ANDw^emit_isk13(~LJ_GC_BLACK, 0), mark, mark);
>     emit_getgl(as, link, gc.grayagain);
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar.test.lua
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..27d18916
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar.test.lua
> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
> +local tap = require('tap')
> +
> +-- This test demonstrates LuaJIT's incorrect fusing of store
> +-- instructions separated by the conditional branch on arm64.
> +-- See alsohttps://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1057.
> +local test = tap.test('lj-1057-arm64-stp-fusing-across-tbar'):skipcond({
> +  ['Test requires JIT enabled'] = not jit.status(),
> +})
> +
> +test:plan(2)
> +
> +-- XXX: Simplify the `jit.dump()` output.
> +local setmetatable = setmetatable
> +
> +-- The function below generates the following IR:
> +-- | 0011          p64 FREF   0003  tab.meta
> +-- | ...
> +-- | 0018 x0    >  tab TNEW   #0    #0
> +-- | 0019          tab TBAR   0003
> +-- | 0020          tab FSTORE 0011  0018
> +-- The expected mcode to be emitted for the last two IRs is the
> +-- following:
> +-- | 55626cffb0  ldrb  w30, [x19, #8] ; tab->marked
> +-- | 55626cffb4  tst   w30, #0x4      ; Is black?
> +-- | 55626cffb8  beq   0x626cffd0     ; Skip marking.
> +-- | 55626cffbc  ldr   x27, [x20, #128]
> +-- | 55626cffc0  and   w30, w30, #0xfffffffb
> +-- | 55626cffc4  str   x19, [x20, #128]
> +-- | 55626cffcc  strb  w30, [x19, #8]  ; tab->marked
> +-- | 55626cffc8  str   x27, [x19, #24] ; tab->gclist
> +-- | 55626cffd0  str   x0,  [x19, #32] ; tab->metatable
> +--
> +-- But the last 2 instructions are fused into the following `stp`:
> +-- | 55581dffd0  stp   x27, x0, [x19, #48]
> +-- Hence, the GC propagation frontier back is done partially,
> +-- since `str x27, [x19, #24]` is not skipped despite TBAR
> +-- semantics. This leads to the incorrect value in the `gclist`
> +-- and the segmentation fault during its traversal on GC step.
> +local function trace(target_t)
> +  -- Precreate a table for the FLOAD to avoid TNEW in between.
> +  local stack_t = {}
> +  -- Generate FSTORE TBAR pair. The FSTORE will be dropped due to
> +  -- the FSTORE below by DSE.
> +  setmetatable(target_t, {})
> +  -- Generate FSTORE. TBAR will be dropped by CSE.
> +  setmetatable(target_t, stack_t)
> +end
> +
> +jit.opt.start('hotloop=1')
> +
> +-- XXX: Need to trigger the GC on trace to introspect that the
> +-- GC chain is broken. Use empirical 10000 iterations.
> +local tab = {}
> +for _ = 1, 1e4 do
> +  trace(tab)
> +end
> +
> +test:ok(true, 'no assertion failure in the simple loop')
> +
> +-- The similar test, but be sure that we finish the whole GC
> +-- cycle, plus using upvalue instead of stack slot for the target
> +-- table.
> +
> +local target_t = {}
> +local function trace2()
> +  local stack_t = {}
> +  setmetatable(target_t, {})
> +  setmetatable(target_t, stack_t)
> +end
> +
> +collectgarbage('collect')
> +collectgarbage('setstepmul', 1)
> +while not collectgarbage('step') do
> +  trace2()
> +end
> +
> +test:ok(true, 'no assertion failure in the whole GC cycle')
> +
> +test:done(true)