From: Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> To: Maxim Kokryashkin <m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/3] x86/x64: Fix loop realignment. Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:06:20 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <Y9ImbOtDFvEGwbhp@root> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1674573205.475122003@f164.i.mail.ru> Hi, Maxim! Thanks for the review! On 24.01.23, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote: > > Hi, Sergey! > Thanks for the patch! > Please consider my comments below. > > > > >>From: Mike Pall <mike> > >> > >>(cherry picked from commit 522d2073da4be2af79db4728cbb375db0fbdfc48) > >> > >>`asm_intarith()` function may try to drop `test r, r` instruction before > >Please note that "r" is an allocated register for the instruction. > >>the Jcc instruction. However, in case when Jcc instruction is "Jump > >Typo: s/in case when/in cases where/ Fixed. > >>short if ..." instruction (i.e. has no 0F opcode prefix like "Jump near > >>if ..."), the `test` instruction is dropped when shouldn't be, due to > >Typo: s/when/when it/ > >>memory miss. As the result, the loop can't be realigned later in > >Typo: s/memory/a memory/ > >Also, that part about the memory miss is unclear, it would be better if you > >could clarify it a bit. > >>`asm_loop_fixup` due to target to jump isn't aligned and the assertion > >Typo: s/isn’t aligned/being misaligned/ Fixed. > >>fails. > >> > >>This patch adds the additional check for 0F opcode in `asm_intarith()`. > >Typo: s/for 0F/for the 0F/ Fixed, thanks! > >> > >>Sergey Kaplun: > >>* added the description and the test for the problem > >> > >>Part of tarantool/tarantool#8069 The new commit message is the following: | x86/x64: Fix loop realignment. | | (cherry picked from commit 522d2073da4be2af79db4728cbb375db0fbdfc48) | | `asm_intarith()` function may try to drop `test r, r` (where `r` is an | allocated register) instruction before the Jcc instruction. However, in | cases when Jcc instruction is "Jump short if ..." instruction (i.e. has | no 0F opcode prefix like "Jump near if ..."), the `test` instruction is | dropped when it shouldn't be, due to usage for the comparison the next | byte after instruction itself. As the result, the loop can't be | realigned later in `asm_loop_fixup` due to target to jump being | misaligned and the assertion fails. | | This patch adds the additional check for the 0F opcode in | `asm_intarith()`. | | Sergey Kaplun: | * added the description and the test for the problem | | Part of tarantool/tarantool#8069 Branch is force pushed. > >>--- > >> src/lj_asm_x86.h | 5 +++-- > >> .../lj-556-fix-loop-realignment.test.lua | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-556-fix-loop-realignment.test.lua > >> > >>diff --git a/src/lj_asm_x86.h b/src/lj_asm_x86.h > >>index 8efda8e5..e6c42c6d 100644 > >>--- a/src/lj_asm_x86.h > >>+++ b/src/lj_asm_x86.h > >>@@ -2068,8 +2068,9 @@ static void asm_intarith(ASMState *as, IRIns *ir, x86Arith xa) > >> int32_t k = 0; > >> if (as->flagmcp == as->mcp) { /* Drop test r,r instruction. */ > >> MCode *p = as->mcp + ((LJ_64 && *as->mcp < XI_TESTb) ? 3 : 2); > >>- if ((p[1] & 15) < 14) { > >>- if ((p[1] & 15) >= 12) p[1] -= 4; /* L <->S, NL <-> NS */ > >>+ MCode *q = p[0] == 0x0f ? p+1 : p; > >>+ if ((*q & 15) < 14) { > >>+ if ((*q & 15) >= 12) *q -= 4; /* L <->S, NL <-> NS */ > >> as->flagmcp = NULL; > >> as->mcp = p; > >> } /* else: cannot transform LE/NLE to cc without use of OF. */ > >>diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-556-fix-loop-realignment.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-556-fix-loop-realignment.test.lua > >>new file mode 100644 > >>index 00000000..9a8e6098 > >>--- /dev/null > >>+++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-556-fix-loop-realignment.test.lua > >>@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ > >>+local tap = require('tap') > >>+ > >>+local test = tap.test('lj-505-fold-icorrect-behavior') > >>+test:plan(1) > >>+ > >>+-- Test file to demonstrate JIT misbehaviour for loop realignment > >>+-- in LUAJIT_NUMMODE=2. See also > >>+-- https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/556 . > >>+ > >>+jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') > >>+ > >>+local s = 4 > >>+while s > 0 do > >>+ s = s - 1 > >>+end > >>+ > >>+test:ok(true, 'loop is compiled and ran successfully') > >>+os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1) > >>-- > >The test works just fine with HEAD on > >f7d61d96 ci: introduce workflow for exotic builds. > > > >Tested configurations: > >LJ_64: True, LJ_GC64: True, LJ_DUALNUM: True > >LJ_64: True, LJ_GC64: False, LJ_DUALNUM: True It's strange... I use the following build command: | $ cmake . -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DLUA_USE_APICHECK=ON -DLUA_USE_ASSERT=ON -DLUAJIT_ENABLE_GC64=OFF -DLUAJIT_NUMMODE=2 && make -j and get the following assertion: | asm_loop_fixup: Assertion `((intptr_t)target & 15) == 0' failed. What command do you use to build LuaJIT? > >-- > >Best regards, > >Maxim Kokryashkin > > -- Best regards, Sergey Kaplun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-26 7:09 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-01-18 20:19 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 0/3] Dualnumber mode fixes Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-18 20:16 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 1/3] sysprof: fix interval parsing in dual-number mode Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-24 14:16 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-26 15:55 ` sergos via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-30 9:39 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-18 20:16 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 2/3] ci: introduce workflow for exotic builds Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-24 14:20 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-26 21:12 ` sergos via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-30 9:51 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-02-01 8:27 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-02-01 8:52 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-02-02 8:54 ` sergos via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-18 20:16 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/3] x86/x64: Fix loop realignment Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-19 10:17 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-24 15:13 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-26 7:06 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches [this message] 2023-01-26 14:45 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-01-26 21:22 ` sergos via Tarantool-patches 2023-02-20 9:56 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 0/3] Dualnumber mode fixes 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=Y9ImbOtDFvEGwbhp@root \ --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org \ --cc=skaplun@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/3] x86/x64: Fix loop realignment.' \ /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