Skip to content

JIT: Avoid introducing data races in RBO#78714

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
jakobbotsch wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

JIT: Avoid introducing data races in RBO #78714

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e71ff35
JIT: Avoid introducing data races in RBO
jakobbotsch Nov 22, 2022
ba4b28b
Fix comment
jakobbotsch Nov 22, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 13 additions & 3 deletions src/coreclr/jit/redundantbranchopts.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -1961,16 +1961,26 @@ bool Compiler::optRedundantRelop(BasicBlock* const block)
continue;
}

// If the lcl defined here is live out, forward sub is problematic.
// We'll either create a redundant tree (as the original won't be dead)
// or lose the def (if we actually move the RHS tree).
// If the lcl defined here is live out we'll create a redundant tree
// (as the original won't be dead).
//
if (VarSetOps::IsMember(this, block->bbLiveOut, prevTreeLclDsc->lvVarIndex))
{
JITDUMP(" -- prev tree lcl V%02u is live-out\n", prevTreeLcl);
continue;
}

// The local may have uses between the def and the JTRUE. Duplicating
// reads is not allowed and in any case duplicating it in this case is
// probably not be worth it from a profitability perspective.
//
LclSsaVarDsc* ssaDefDsc = prevTreeLclDsc->GetPerSsaData(prevTreeLHS->AsLclVarCommon()->GetSsaNum());
if (ssaDefDsc->GetNumUses() >= 2)

@SingleAccretionSingleAccretionNov 22, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Notably, this it is not a 100% fix, since we do not count composite uses.

@jakobbotschjakobbotschNov 22, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, well that's unfortunate as I was trying to simplify the substitution that happens below.
Do we see the composite case here?

@SingleAccretionSingleAccretionNov 22, 2022•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is theoretically possible, though I suspect quite hard to encounter in practice.

(A reproduction would go along the lines of complex field reinterpretations s.t. we end up with LCL_FLD<parent> as the "unaccounted" use)

{
JITDUMP(" -- prev tree lcl V%02u has up to %d uses\n", prevTreeLcl, ssaDefDsc->GetNumUses());
continue;
}

JITDUMP(" -- prev tree is viable candidate for relop fwd sub!\n");
candidateTree = prevTreeRHS;
candidateStmt = prevStmt;
Expand Down