1===================================== 2Garbage Collection Safepoints in LLVM 3===================================== 4 5.. contents:: 6 :local: 7 :depth: 2 8 9Status 10======= 11 12This document describes a set of extensions to LLVM to support garbage 13collection. By now, these mechanisms are well proven with commercial java 14implementation with a fully relocating collector having shipped using them. 15There are a couple places where bugs might still linger; these are called out 16below. 17 18They are still listed as "experimental" to indicate that no forward or backward 19compatibility guarantees are offered across versions. If your use case is such 20that you need some form of forward compatibility guarantee, please raise the 21issue on the llvm-dev mailing list. 22 23LLVM still supports an alternate mechanism for conservative garbage collection 24support using the ``gcroot`` intrinsic. The ``gcroot`` mechanism is mostly of 25historical interest at this point with one exception - its implementation of 26shadow stacks has been used successfully by a number of language frontends and 27is still supported. 28 29Overview & Core Concepts 30======================== 31 32To collect dead objects, garbage collectors must be able to identify 33any references to objects contained within executing code, and, 34depending on the collector, potentially update them. The collector 35does not need this information at all points in code - that would make 36the problem much harder - but only at well-defined points in the 37execution known as 'safepoints' For most collectors, it is sufficient 38to track at least one copy of each unique pointer value. However, for 39a collector which wishes to relocate objects directly reachable from 40running code, a higher standard is required. 41 42One additional challenge is that the compiler may compute intermediate 43results ("derived pointers") which point outside of the allocation or 44even into the middle of another allocation. The eventual use of this 45intermediate value must yield an address within the bounds of the 46allocation, but such "exterior derived pointers" may be visible to the 47collector. Given this, a garbage collector can not safely rely on the 48runtime value of an address to indicate the object it is associated 49with. If the garbage collector wishes to move any object, the 50compiler must provide a mapping, for each pointer, to an indication of 51its allocation. 52 53To simplify the interaction between a collector and the compiled code, 54most garbage collectors are organized in terms of three abstractions: 55load barriers, store barriers, and safepoints. 56 57#. A load barrier is a bit of code executed immediately after the 58 machine load instruction, but before any use of the value loaded. 59 Depending on the collector, such a barrier may be needed for all 60 loads, merely loads of a particular type (in the original source 61 language), or none at all. 62 63#. Analogously, a store barrier is a code fragment that runs 64 immediately before the machine store instruction, but after the 65 computation of the value stored. The most common use of a store 66 barrier is to update a 'card table' in a generational garbage 67 collector. 68 69#. A safepoint is a location at which pointers visible to the compiled 70 code (i.e. currently in registers or on the stack) are allowed to 71 change. After the safepoint completes, the actual pointer value 72 may differ, but the 'object' (as seen by the source language) 73 pointed to will not. 74 75 Note that the term 'safepoint' is somewhat overloaded. It refers to 76 both the location at which the machine state is parsable and the 77 coordination protocol involved in bring application threads to a 78 point at which the collector can safely use that information. The 79 term "statepoint" as used in this document refers exclusively to the 80 former. 81 82This document focuses on the last item - compiler support for 83safepoints in generated code. We will assume that an outside 84mechanism has decided where to place safepoints. From our 85perspective, all safepoints will be function calls. To support 86relocation of objects directly reachable from values in compiled code, 87the collector must be able to: 88 89#. identify every copy of a pointer (including copies introduced by 90 the compiler itself) at the safepoint, 91#. identify which object each pointer relates to, and 92#. potentially update each of those copies. 93 94This document describes the mechanism by which an LLVM based compiler 95can provide this information to a language runtime/collector, and 96ensure that all pointers can be read and updated if desired. 97 98Abstract Machine Model 99^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 100 101At a high level, LLVM has been extended to support compiling to an abstract 102machine which extends the actual target with a non-integral pointer type 103suitable for representing a garbage collected reference to an object. In 104particular, such non-integral pointer type have no defined mapping to an 105integer representation. This semantic quirk allows the runtime to pick a 106integer mapping for each point in the program allowing relocations of objects 107without visible effects. 108 109This high level abstract machine model is used for most of the optimizer. As 110a result, transform passes do not need to be extended to look through explicit 111relocation sequence. Before starting code generation, we switch 112representations to an explicit form. The exact location chosen for lowering 113is an implementation detail. 114 115Note that most of the value of the abstract machine model comes for collectors 116which need to model potentially relocatable objects. For a compiler which 117supports only a non-relocating collector, you may wish to consider starting 118with the fully explicit form. 119 120Warning: There is one currently known semantic hole in the definition of 121non-integral pointers which has not been addressed upstream. To work around 122this, you need to disable speculation of loads unless the memory type 123(non-integral pointer vs anything else) is known to unchanged. That is, it is 124not safe to speculate a load if doing causes a non-integral pointer value to 125be loaded as any other type or vice versa. In practice, this restriction is 126well isolated to isSafeToSpeculate in ValueTracking.cpp. 127 128Explicit Representation 129^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 130 131A frontend could directly generate this low level explicit form, but 132doing so may inhibit optimization. Instead, it is recommended that 133compilers with relocating collectors target the abstract machine model just 134described. 135 136The heart of the explicit approach is to construct (or rewrite) the IR in a 137manner where the possible updates performed by the garbage collector are 138explicitly visible in the IR. Doing so requires that we: 139 140#. create a new SSA value for each potentially relocated pointer, and 141 ensure that no uses of the original (non relocated) value is 142 reachable after the safepoint, 143#. specify the relocation in a way which is opaque to the compiler to 144 ensure that the optimizer can not introduce new uses of an 145 unrelocated value after a statepoint. This prevents the optimizer 146 from performing unsound optimizations. 147#. recording a mapping of live pointers (and the allocation they're 148 associated with) for each statepoint. 149 150At the most abstract level, inserting a safepoint can be thought of as 151replacing a call instruction with a call to a multiple return value 152function which both calls the original target of the call, returns 153its result, and returns updated values for any live pointers to 154garbage collected objects. 155 156 Note that the task of identifying all live pointers to garbage 157 collected values, transforming the IR to expose a pointer giving the 158 base object for every such live pointer, and inserting all the 159 intrinsics correctly is explicitly out of scope for this document. 160 The recommended approach is to use the :ref:`utility passes 161 <statepoint-utilities>` described below. 162 163This abstract function call is concretely represented by a sequence of 164intrinsic calls known collectively as a "statepoint relocation sequence". 165 166Let's consider a simple call in LLVM IR: 167 168.. code-block:: llvm 169 170 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 171 gc "statepoint-example" { 172 call void ()* @foo() 173 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj 174 } 175 176Depending on our language we may need to allow a safepoint during the execution 177of ``foo``. If so, we need to let the collector update local values in the 178current frame. If we don't, we'll be accessing a potential invalid reference 179once we eventually return from the call. 180 181In this example, we need to relocate the SSA value ``%obj``. Since we can't 182actually change the value in the SSA value ``%obj``, we need to introduce a new 183SSA value ``%obj.relocated`` which represents the potentially changed value of 184``%obj`` after the safepoint and update any following uses appropriately. The 185resulting relocation sequence is: 186 187.. code-block:: llvm 188 189 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 190 gc "statepoint-example" { 191 %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 192 %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 7, i32 7) 193 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated 194 } 195 196Ideally, this sequence would have been represented as a M argument, N 197return value function (where M is the number of values being 198relocated + the original call arguments and N is the original return 199value + each relocated value), but LLVM does not easily support such a 200representation. 201 202Instead, the statepoint intrinsic marks the actual site of the 203safepoint or statepoint. The statepoint returns a token value (which 204exists only at compile time). To get back the original return value 205of the call, we use the ``gc.result`` intrinsic. To get the relocation 206of each pointer in turn, we use the ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic with the 207appropriate index. Note that both the ``gc.relocate`` and ``gc.result`` are 208tied to the statepoint. The combination forms a "statepoint relocation 209sequence" and represents the entirety of a parseable call or 'statepoint'. 210 211When lowered, this example would generate the following x86 assembly: 212 213.. code-block:: gas 214 215 .globl test1 216 .align 16, 0x90 217 pushq %rax 218 callq foo 219 .Ltmp1: 220 movq (%rsp), %rax # This load is redundant (oops!) 221 popq %rdx 222 retq 223 224Each of the potentially relocated values has been spilled to the 225stack, and a record of that location has been recorded to the 226:ref:`Stack Map section <stackmap-section>`. If the garbage collector 227needs to update any of these pointers during the call, it knows 228exactly what to change. 229 230The relevant parts of the StackMap section for our example are: 231 232.. code-block:: gas 233 234 # This describes the call site 235 # Stack Maps: callsite 2882400000 236 .quad 2882400000 237 .long .Ltmp1-test1 238 .short 0 239 # .. 8 entries skipped .. 240 # This entry describes the spill slot which is directly addressable 241 # off RSP with offset 0. Given the value was spilled with a pushq, 242 # that makes sense. 243 # Stack Maps: Loc 8: Direct RSP [encoding: .byte 2, .byte 8, .short 7, .int 0] 244 .byte 2 245 .byte 8 246 .short 7 247 .long 0 248 249This example was taken from the tests for the :ref:`RewriteStatepointsForGC` 250utility pass. As such, its full StackMap can be easily examined with the 251following command. 252 253.. code-block:: bash 254 255 opt -rewrite-statepoints-for-gc test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC/basics.ll -S | llc -debug-only=stackmaps 256 257Simplifications for Non-Relocating GCs 258^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 259 260Some of the complexity in the previous example is unnecessary for a 261non-relocating collector. While a non-relocating collector still needs the 262information about which location contain live references, it doesn't need to 263represent explicit relocations. As such, the previously described explicit 264lowering can be simplified to remove all of the ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic 265calls and leave uses in terms of the original reference value. 266 267Here's the explicit lowering for the previous example for a non-relocating 268collector: 269 270.. code-block:: llvm 271 272 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 273 gc "statepoint-example" { 274 call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 275 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj 276 } 277 278Recording On Stack Regions 279^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 280 281In addition to the explicit relocation form previously described, the 282statepoint infrastructure also allows the listing of allocas within the gc 283pointer list. Allocas can be listed with or without additional explicit gc 284pointer values and relocations. 285 286An alloca in the gc region of the statepoint operand list will cause the 287address of the stack region to be listed in the stackmap for the statepoint. 288 289This mechanism can be used to describe explicit spill slots if desired. It 290then becomes the generator's responsibility to ensure that values are 291spill/filled to/from the alloca as needed on either side of the safepoint. 292Note that there is no way to indicate a corresponding base pointer for such 293an explicitly specified spill slot, so usage is restricted to values for 294which the associated collector can derive the object base from the pointer 295itself. 296 297This mechanism can be used to describe on stack objects containing 298references provided that the collector can map from the location on the 299stack to a heap map describing the internal layout of the references the 300collector needs to process. 301 302WARNING: At the moment, this alternate form is not well exercised. It is 303recommended to use this with caution and expect to have to fix a few bugs. 304In particular, the RewriteStatepointsForGC utility pass does not do 305anything for allocas today. 306 307Base & Derived Pointers 308^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 309 310A "base pointer" is one which points to the starting address of an allocation 311(object). A "derived pointer" is one which is offset from a base pointer by 312some amount. When relocating objects, a garbage collector needs to be able 313to relocate each derived pointer associated with an allocation to the same 314offset from the new address. 315 316"Interior derived pointers" remain within the bounds of the allocation 317they're associated with. As a result, the base object can be found at 318runtime provided the bounds of allocations are known to the runtime system. 319 320"Exterior derived pointers" are outside the bounds of the associated object; 321they may even fall within *another* allocations address range. As a result, 322there is no way for a garbage collector to determine which allocation they 323are associated with at runtime and compiler support is needed. 324 325The ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic supports an explicit operand for describing the 326allocation associated with a derived pointer. This operand is frequently 327referred to as the base operand, but does not strictly speaking have to be 328a base pointer, but it does need to lie within the bounds of the associated 329allocation. Some collectors may require that the operand be an actual base 330pointer rather than merely an internal derived pointer. Note that during 331lowering both the base and derived pointer operands are required to be live 332over the associated call safepoint even if the base is otherwise unused 333afterwards. 334 335If we extend our previous example to include a pointless derived pointer, 336we get: 337 338.. code-block:: llvm 339 340 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 341 gc "statepoint-example" { 342 %gep = getelementptr i8, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj, i64 20000 343 %token = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj, i8 addrspace(1)* %gep) 344 %obj.relocated = call i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %token, i32 7, i32 7) 345 %gep.relocated = call i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %token, i32 7, i32 8) 346 %p = getelementptr i8, i8 addrspace(1)* %gep, i64 -20000 347 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %p 348 } 349 350Note that in this example %p and %obj.relocate are the same address and we 351could replace one with the other, potentially removing the derived pointer 352from the live set at the safepoint entirely. 353 354.. _gc_transition_args: 355 356GC Transitions 357^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 358 359As a practical consideration, many garbage-collected systems allow code that is 360collector-aware ("managed code") to call code that is not collector-aware 361("unmanaged code"). It is common that such calls must also be safepoints, since 362it is desirable to allow the collector to run during the execution of 363unmanaged code. Furthermore, it is common that coordinating the transition from 364managed to unmanaged code requires extra code generation at the call site to 365inform the collector of the transition. In order to support these needs, a 366statepoint may be marked as a GC transition, and data that is necessary to 367perform the transition (if any) may be provided as additional arguments to the 368statepoint. 369 370 Note that although in many cases statepoints may be inferred to be GC 371 transitions based on the function symbols involved (e.g. a call from a 372 function with GC strategy "foo" to a function with GC strategy "bar"), 373 indirect calls that are also GC transitions must also be supported. This 374 requirement is the driving force behind the decision to require that GC 375 transitions are explicitly marked. 376 377Let's revisit the sample given above, this time treating the call to ``@foo`` 378as a GC transition. Depending on our target, the transition code may need to 379access some extra state in order to inform the collector of the transition. 380Let's assume a hypothetical GC--somewhat unimaginatively named "hypothetical-gc" 381--that requires that a TLS variable must be written to before and after a call 382to unmanaged code. The resulting relocation sequence is: 383 384.. code-block:: llvm 385 386 @flag = thread_local global i32 0, align 4 387 388 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1) *%obj) 389 gc "hypothetical-gc" { 390 391 %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 1, i32* @Flag, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 392 %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 7, i32 7) 393 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated 394 } 395 396During lowering, this will result in an instruction selection DAG that looks 397something like: 398 399:: 400 401 CALLSEQ_START 402 ... 403 GC_TRANSITION_START (lowered i32 *@Flag), SRCVALUE i32* Flag 404 STATEPOINT 405 GC_TRANSITION_END (lowered i32 *@Flag), SRCVALUE i32 *Flag 406 ... 407 CALLSEQ_END 408 409In order to generate the necessary transition code, the backend for each target 410supported by "hypothetical-gc" must be modified to lower ``GC_TRANSITION_START`` 411and ``GC_TRANSITION_END`` nodes appropriately when the "hypothetical-gc" 412strategy is in use for a particular function. Assuming that such lowering has 413been added for X86, the generated assembly would be: 414 415.. code-block:: gas 416 417 .globl test1 418 .align 16, 0x90 419 pushq %rax 420 movl $1, %fs:Flag@TPOFF 421 callq foo 422 movl $0, %fs:Flag@TPOFF 423 .Ltmp1: 424 movq (%rsp), %rax # This load is redundant (oops!) 425 popq %rdx 426 retq 427 428Note that the design as presented above is not fully implemented: in particular, 429strategy-specific lowering is not present, and all GC transitions are emitted as 430as single no-op before and after the call instruction. These no-ops are often 431removed by the backend during dead machine instruction elimination. 432 433 434.. _statepoint-stackmap-format: 435 436Stack Map Format 437================ 438 439Locations for each pointer value which may need read and/or updated by 440the runtime or collector are provided in a separate section of the 441generated object file as specified in the PatchPoint documentation. 442This special section is encoded per the 443:ref:`Stack Map format <stackmap-format>`. 444 445The general expectation is that a JIT compiler will parse and discard this 446format; it is not particularly memory efficient. If you need an alternate 447format (e.g. for an ahead of time compiler), see discussion under 448:ref: `open work items <OpenWork>` below. 449 450Each statepoint generates the following Locations: 451 452* Constant which describes the calling convention of the call target. This 453 constant is a valid :ref:`calling convention identifier <callingconv>` for 454 the version of LLVM used to generate the stackmap. No additional compatibility 455 guarantees are made for this constant over what LLVM provides elsewhere w.r.t. 456 these identifiers. 457* Constant which describes the flags passed to the statepoint intrinsic 458* Constant which describes number of following deopt *Locations* (not 459 operands). Will be 0 if no "deopt" bundle is provided. 460* Variable number of Locations, one for each deopt parameter listed in the 461 "deopt" operand bundle. At the moment, only deopt parameters with a bitwidth 462 of 64 bits or less are supported. Values of a type larger than 64 bits can be 463 specified and reported only if a) the value is constant at the call site, and 464 b) the constant can be represented with less than 64 bits (assuming zero 465 extension to the original bitwidth). 466* Variable number of relocation records, each of which consists of 467 exactly two Locations. Relocation records are described in detail 468 below. 469 470Each relocation record provides sufficient information for a collector to 471relocate one or more derived pointers. Each record consists of a pair of 472Locations. The second element in the record represents the pointer (or 473pointers) which need updated. The first element in the record provides a 474pointer to the base of the object with which the pointer(s) being relocated is 475associated. This information is required for handling generalized derived 476pointers since a pointer may be outside the bounds of the original allocation, 477but still needs to be relocated with the allocation. Additionally: 478 479* It is guaranteed that the base pointer must also appear explicitly as a 480 relocation pair if used after the statepoint. 481* There may be fewer relocation records then gc parameters in the IR 482 statepoint. Each *unique* pair will occur at least once; duplicates 483 are possible. 484* The Locations within each record may either be of pointer size or a 485 multiple of pointer size. In the later case, the record must be 486 interpreted as describing a sequence of pointers and their corresponding 487 base pointers. If the Location is of size N x sizeof(pointer), then 488 there will be N records of one pointer each contained within the Location. 489 Both Locations in a pair can be assumed to be of the same size. 490 491Note that the Locations used in each section may describe the same 492physical location. e.g. A stack slot may appear as a deopt location, 493a gc base pointer, and a gc derived pointer. 494 495The LiveOut section of the StkMapRecord will be empty for a statepoint 496record. 497 498Safepoint Semantics & Verification 499================================== 500 501The fundamental correctness property for the compiled code's 502correctness w.r.t. the garbage collector is a dynamic one. It must be 503the case that there is no dynamic trace such that an operation 504involving a potentially relocated pointer is observably-after a 505safepoint which could relocate it. 'observably-after' is this usage 506means that an outside observer could observe this sequence of events 507in a way which precludes the operation being performed before the 508safepoint. 509 510To understand why this 'observable-after' property is required, 511consider a null comparison performed on the original copy of a 512relocated pointer. Assuming that control flow follows the safepoint, 513there is no way to observe externally whether the null comparison is 514performed before or after the safepoint. (Remember, the original 515Value is unmodified by the safepoint.) The compiler is free to make 516either scheduling choice. 517 518The actual correctness property implemented is slightly stronger than 519this. We require that there be no *static path* on which a 520potentially relocated pointer is 'observably-after' it may have been 521relocated. This is slightly stronger than is strictly necessary (and 522thus may disallow some otherwise valid programs), but greatly 523simplifies reasoning about correctness of the compiled code. 524 525By construction, this property will be upheld by the optimizer if 526correctly established in the source IR. This is a key invariant of 527the design. 528 529The existing IR Verifier pass has been extended to check most of the 530local restrictions on the intrinsics mentioned in their respective 531documentation. The current implementation in LLVM does not check the 532key relocation invariant, but this is ongoing work on developing such 533a verifier. Please ask on llvm-dev if you're interested in 534experimenting with the current version. 535 536.. _statepoint-utilities: 537 538Utility Passes for Safepoint Insertion 539====================================== 540 541.. _RewriteStatepointsForGC: 542 543RewriteStatepointsForGC 544^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 545 546The pass RewriteStatepointsForGC transforms a function's IR to lower from the 547abstract machine model described above to the explicit statepoint model of 548relocations. To do this, it replaces all calls or invokes of functions which 549might contain a safepoint poll with a ``gc.statepoint`` and associated full 550relocation sequence, including all required ``gc.relocates``. 551 552Note that by default, this pass only runs for the "statepoint-example" or 553"core-clr" gc strategies. You will need to add your custom strategy to this 554list or use one of the predefined ones. 555 556As an example, given this code: 557 558.. code-block:: llvm 559 560 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 561 gc "statepoint-example" { 562 call void @foo() 563 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj 564 } 565 566The pass would produce this IR: 567 568.. code-block:: llvm 569 570 define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 571 gc "statepoint-example" { 572 %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 2882400000, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 5, i32 0, i32 -1, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj) 573 %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 12, i32 12) 574 ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated 575 } 576 577In the above examples, the addrspace(1) marker on the pointers is the mechanism 578that the ``statepoint-example`` GC strategy uses to distinguish references from 579non references. The pass assumes that all addrspace(1) pointers are non-integral 580pointer types. Address space 1 is not globally reserved for this purpose. 581 582This pass can be used an utility function by a language frontend that doesn't 583want to manually reason about liveness, base pointers, or relocation when 584constructing IR. As currently implemented, RewriteStatepointsForGC must be 585run after SSA construction (i.e. mem2ref). 586 587RewriteStatepointsForGC will ensure that appropriate base pointers are listed 588for every relocation created. It will do so by duplicating code as needed to 589propagate the base pointer associated with each pointer being relocated to 590the appropriate safepoints. The implementation assumes that the following 591IR constructs produce base pointers: loads from the heap, addresses of global 592variables, function arguments, function return values. Constant pointers (such 593as null) are also assumed to be base pointers. In practice, this constraint 594can be relaxed to producing interior derived pointers provided the target 595collector can find the associated allocation from an arbitrary interior 596derived pointer. 597 598By default RewriteStatepointsForGC passes in ``0xABCDEF00`` as the statepoint 599ID and ``0`` as the number of patchable bytes to the newly constructed 600``gc.statepoint``. These values can be configured on a per-callsite 601basis using the attributes ``"statepoint-id"`` and 602``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"``. If a call site is marked with a 603``"statepoint-id"`` function attribute and its value is a positive 604integer (represented as a string), then that value is used as the ID 605of the newly constructed ``gc.statepoint``. If a call site is marked 606with a ``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"`` function attribute and its 607value is a positive integer, then that value is used as the 'num patch 608bytes' parameter of the newly constructed ``gc.statepoint``. The 609``"statepoint-id"`` and ``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"`` attributes 610are not propagated to the ``gc.statepoint`` call or invoke if they 611could be successfully parsed. 612 613In practice, RewriteStatepointsForGC should be run much later in the pass 614pipeline, after most optimization is already done. This helps to improve 615the quality of the generated code when compiled with garbage collection support. 616 617.. _RewriteStatepointsForGC_intrinsic_lowering: 618 619RewriteStatepointsForGC intrinsic lowering 620^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 621 622As a part of lowering to the explicit model of relocations 623RewriteStatepointsForGC performs GC specific lowering for 624'``llvm.memcpy.element.unordered.atomic.*``', 625'``llvm.memmove.element.unordered.atomic.*``' intrinsics. 626 627There are two possible lowerings for these copy operations: GC leaf lowering 628and GC parseable lowering. If a call is explicitly marked with 629"gc-leaf-function" attribute the call is lowered to a GC leaf call to 630'``__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_*``' or 631'``__llvm_memmove_element_unordered_atomic_*``' symbol. Such a call can not 632take a safepoint. Otherwise, the call is made GC parseable by wrapping the 633call into a statepoint. This makes it possible to take a safepoint during 634copy operation. Note that a GC parseable copy operation is not required to 635take a safepoint. For example, a short copy operation may be performed without 636taking a safepoint. 637 638GC parseable calls to '``llvm.memcpy.element.unordered.atomic.*``', 639'``llvm.memmove.element.unordered.atomic.*``' intrinsics are lowered to calls 640to '``__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_*``', 641'``__llvm_memmove_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_*``' symbols respectively. 642This way the runtime can provide implementations of copy operations with and 643without safepoints. 644 645GC parseable lowering also involves adjusting the arguments for the call. 646Memcpy and memmove intrinsics take derived pointers as source and destination 647arguments. If a copy operation takes a safepoint it might need to relocate the 648underlying source and destination objects. This requires the corresponding base 649pointers to be available in the copy operation. In order to make the base 650pointers available RewriteStatepointsForGC replaces derived pointers with base 651pointer and offset pairs. For example: 652 653.. code-block:: llvm 654 655 declare void @__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_1( 656 i8 addrspace(1)* %dest_base, i64 %dest_offset, 657 i8 addrspace(1)* %src_base, i64 %src_offset, 658 i64 %length) 659 660 661.. _PlaceSafepoints: 662 663PlaceSafepoints 664^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 665 666The pass PlaceSafepoints inserts safepoint polls sufficient to ensure running 667code checks for a safepoint request on a timely manner. This pass is expected 668to be run before RewriteStatepointsForGC and thus does not produce full 669relocation sequences. 670 671As an example, given input IR of the following: 672 673.. code-block:: llvm 674 675 define void @test() gc "statepoint-example" { 676 call void @foo() 677 ret void 678 } 679 680 declare void @do_safepoint() 681 define void @gc.safepoint_poll() { 682 call void @do_safepoint() 683 ret void 684 } 685 686 687This pass would produce the following IR: 688 689.. code-block:: llvm 690 691 define void @test() gc "statepoint-example" { 692 call void @do_safepoint() 693 call void @foo() 694 ret void 695 } 696 697In this case, we've added an (unconditional) entry safepoint poll. Note that 698despite appearances, the entry poll is not necessarily redundant. We'd have to 699know that ``foo`` and ``test`` were not mutually recursive for the poll to be 700redundant. In practice, you'd probably want to your poll definition to contain 701a conditional branch of some form. 702 703At the moment, PlaceSafepoints can insert safepoint polls at method entry and 704loop backedges locations. Extending this to work with return polls would be 705straight forward if desired. 706 707PlaceSafepoints includes a number of optimizations to avoid placing safepoint 708polls at particular sites unless needed to ensure timely execution of a poll 709under normal conditions. PlaceSafepoints does not attempt to ensure timely 710execution of a poll under worst case conditions such as heavy system paging. 711 712The implementation of a safepoint poll action is specified by looking up a 713function of the name ``gc.safepoint_poll`` in the containing Module. The body 714of this function is inserted at each poll site desired. While calls or invokes 715inside this method are transformed to a ``gc.statepoints``, recursive poll 716insertion is not performed. 717 718This pass is useful for any language frontend which only has to support 719garbage collection semantics at safepoints. If you need other abstract 720frame information at safepoints (e.g. for deoptimization or introspection), 721you can insert safepoint polls in the frontend. If you have the later case, 722please ask on llvm-dev for suggestions. There's been a good amount of work 723done on making such a scheme work well in practice which is not yet documented 724here. 725 726 727Supported Architectures 728======================= 729 730Support for statepoint generation requires some code for each backend. 731Today, only X86_64 is supported. 732 733.. _OpenWork: 734 735Limitations and Half Baked Ideas 736================================ 737 738Mixing References and Raw Pointers 739^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 740 741Support for languages which allow unmanaged pointers to garbage collected 742objects (i.e. pass a pointer to an object to a C routine) in the abstract 743machine model. At the moment, the best idea on how to approach this 744involves an intrinsic or opaque function which hides the connection between 745the reference value and the raw pointer. The problem is that having a 746ptrtoint or inttoptr cast (which is common for such use cases) breaks the 747rules used for inferring base pointers for arbitrary references when 748lowering out of the abstract model to the explicit physical model. Note 749that a frontend which lowers directly to the physical model doesn't have 750any problems here. 751 752Objects on the Stack 753^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 754 755As noted above, the explicit lowering supports objects allocated on the 756stack provided the collector can find a heap map given the stack address. 757 758The missing pieces are a) integration with rewriting (RS4GC) from the 759abstract machine model and b) support for optionally decomposing on stack 760objects so as not to require heap maps for them. The later is required 761for ease of integration with some collectors. 762 763Lowering Quality and Representation Overhead 764^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 765 766The current statepoint lowering is known to be somewhat poor. In the very 767long term, we'd like to integrate statepoints with the register allocator; 768in the near term this is unlikely to happen. We've found the quality of 769lowering to be relatively unimportant as hot-statepoints are almost always 770inliner bugs. 771 772Concerns have been raised that the statepoint representation results in a 773large amount of IR being produced for some examples and that this 774contributes to higher than expected memory usage and compile times. There's 775no immediate plans to make changes due to this, but alternate models may be 776explored in the future. 777 778Relocations Along Exceptional Edges 779^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 780 781Relocations along exceptional paths are currently broken in ToT. In 782particular, there is current no way to represent a rethrow on a path which 783also has relocations. See `this llvm-dev discussion 784<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/llvm-dev/AE417XjgxvI>`_ for more 785detail. 786 787Support for alternate stackmap formats 788^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 789 790For some use cases, it is 791desirable to directly encode a final memory efficient stackmap format for 792use by the runtime. This is particularly relevant for ahead of time 793compilers which wish to directly link object files without the need for 794post processing of each individual object file. While not implemented 795today for statepoints, there is precedent for a GCStrategy to be able to 796select a customer GCMetataPrinter for this purpose. Patches to enable 797this functionality upstream are welcome. 798 799Bugs and Enhancements 800===================== 801 802Currently known bugs and enhancements under consideration can be 803tracked by performing a `bugzilla search 804<https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=Statepoint%20Bugs&list_id=64342>`_ 805for [Statepoint] in the summary field. When filing new bugs, please 806use this tag so that interested parties see the newly filed bug. As 807with most LLVM features, design discussions take place on `llvm-dev 808<http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>`_, and patches 809should be sent to `llvm-commits 810<http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>`_ for review. 811 812