public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yury Gribov <y.gribov@samsung.com>
To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, David Li <davidxl@google.com>,
	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
	Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] COMDAT Safe Module Level Multi versioning
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:28:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <555B7143.3000502@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAs8HmyB5jZS_zfHKeX9HEK3Eo59nVhuB4yfoGTy5hXV41YZYA@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/19/2015 09:16 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> We have the following problem with selectively compiling modules with
> -m<isa> options and I have provided a solution to solve this.  I would
> like to hear what you think.
>
> Multi versioning at module granularity is done by compiling a subset
> of modules with advanced ISA instructions, supported on later
> generations of the target architecture, via -m<isa> options and
> invoking the functions defined in these modules with explicit checks
> for the ISA support via builtin functions,  __builtin_cpu_supports.
> This mechanism has the unfortunate side-effect that generated COMDAT
> candidates from these modules can contain these advanced instructions
> and potentially “violate” ODR assumptions.  Choosing such a COMDAT
> candidate over a generic one from a different module can cause SIGILL
> on platforms where the advanced ISA is not supported.
>
> Here is a slightly contrived  example to illustrate:
>
>
> matrixdouble.h
> --------------------
> // Template (Comdat) function definition in a header:
>
> template<typename T>
> __attribute__((noinline))
> void matrixDouble (T *a) {
>    for (int i = 0 ; i < 16; ++i)  //Vectorizable Loop
>      a[i] = a[i] * 2;
> }
>
> avx.cc  (Compile with -mavx -O2)
> ---------
>
> #include "matrixdouble.h"
> void getDoubleAVX(int *a) {
>   matrixDouble(a);  // Instantiated with vectorized AVX instructions
> }
>
>
> non_avx.cc (Compile with -mno-avx -O2)
> ---------------
>
> #include “matrixdouble.h”
> void
> getDouble(int *a) {
>   matrixDouble(a); // Instantiated with non-AVX instructions
> }
>
>
> main.cc
> -----------
>
> void getDoubleAVX(int *a);
> void getDouble(int *a);
>
> int a[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 };
> int main () {
>   // The AVX call is appropriately guarded.
>   if (__builtin_cpu_supports(“avx”))
>     getDoubleAVX(a);
>   else
>     getDouble(a);
>   return a[0];
> }
>
>
> In the above code, function “getDoubleAVX” is only called when the
> run-time CPU supports AVX instructions.  This code looks clean but
> suffers from the COMDAT ODR violation.  Two copies of COMDAT function
> “matrixDouble” are generated.  One copy is generated in object file
> “avx.o” with AVX instructions and another copy exists in “non_avx.o”
> without AVX instruction.  At link time, in a link order where object
> file avx.o is seen ahead of  non_avx.o,  the COMDAT copy of function
> “matrixDouble” that contains AVX instructions is kept leading to
> SIGILL on unsupported platforms.  To reproduce the SIGILL,
>
>
> $  g++ -c -O2 -mavx avx.cc
> $ g++ -c -O2 -mno-avx non_avx.cc
> $  g++ main.cc avx.o non_avx.o
> $ ./a.out   # on a non-AVX machine
> Illegal Instruction
>
>
> To solve this, I propose introducing a new compiler option, say
> -fodr-unsafe-comdats, to let the user tag objects that use specialized
> options and let the linker choose the comdat candidate to be linked
> wisely.  The root cause of the above problem is that comdat functions
> in common headers may not be properly guarded and the linker picks the
> first candidate it sees.  A link order where the object with the
> specialized comdat functions appear first causes these comdats to be
> picked leading to SIGILL on unsupported arches.  With the objects
> tagged, the linker can be made to pick other comdat candidates when
> possible.
>
> More details:
>
> This option is user specified when using arch specific options like
> -m<isa>.  It is an indicator to the compiler that any comdat bodies
> generated are potentially unsafe for execution.  Note that the COMDAT
> bodies however have to be generated as there are no guarantees that
> other modules will do so.  The compiler then emits a specially named
> section, like “.gnu.odr.unsafe”, in the object file.  When the linker
> tries to pick a COMDAT candidate from several choices, it must avoid
> COMDAT copies from objects with sections named “.gnu.odr.unsafe” when
> presented with a choice to pick a candidate from an object that does
> not have the “.gnu.odr.unsafe” section.  Note that it may not be
> possible to do that in which case the linker must pick the unsafe
> copy, it could explicitly warn when this happens.
>
> Alternately,  the compiler can bind locally any emitted comdat version
> from a specialized module, which could also be guarded by an option.
> This will solve the problem but this may not be always possible
> especially when addresses of any such comdat version is taken.

Can IFUNC relocations be used to properly select optimal version of code 
at runtime?

-Y

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-05-19 17:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-19  6:30 Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-19  9:39 ` Richard Biener
2015-05-19 16:12   ` Xinliang David Li
2015-06-17  2:18     ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-08-04 18:43       ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-08-13  6:17         ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-08-18 18:46           ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-08-18 21:19             ` Cary Coutant
2015-08-18 21:25               ` Cary Coutant
2015-08-18 21:44               ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-08-19  4:53                 ` Cary Coutant
2015-09-03  0:51                   ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-09-09 23:27                     ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-10-05 21:58                       ` Sriraman Tallam
2016-09-12 19:30                         ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-19 17:22   ` Sriraman Tallam
2015-05-19 17:28 ` Yury Gribov [this message]
2015-05-19 18:18   ` Sriraman Tallam

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=555B7143.3000502@samsung.com \
    --to=y.gribov@samsung.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=ccoutant@gmail.com \
    --cc=davidxl@google.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=tmsriram@google.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).