Adding upstream version 115.7.0esr.upstream/115.7.0esrupstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 367 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/js/src/jit/LICM.cpp b/js/src/jit/LICM.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ba00199fc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/js/src/jit/LICM.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+/* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 8; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*-
+ * vim: set ts=8 sts=2 et sw=2 tw=80:
+ * This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
+ * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
+ * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */
+
+#include "jit/LICM.h"
+
+#include "jit/IonAnalysis.h"
+#include "jit/JitSpewer.h"
+#include "jit/MIRGenerator.h"
+#include "jit/MIRGraph.h"
+
+using namespace js;
+using namespace js::jit;
+
+// There are two constants which control whether a loop is LICM'd or is left
+// unchanged.  For rationale see comment in jit::LICM() below.
+//
+// A bit of quick profiling with the wasm Embenchen suite on x64 shows that
+// the threshold pair (100,25) has either no effect or gives a small net
+// reduction in memory traffic, compared to unconstrained LICMing.  Halving
+// them to (50,12) gives a small overall increase in memory traffic,
+// suggesting it excludes too many loops from LICM.  Doubling them to (200,50)
+// gives a win that is even smaller than (100,25), hence (100,25) seems the
+// best choice.
+//
+// If a loop has more than this number of basic blocks in its body, it won't
+// be LICM'd.
+static constexpr size_t LargestAllowedLoop = 100;
+
+// If a loop contains an MTableSwitch instruction that has more than this many
+// successors, it won't be LICM'd.
+static constexpr size_t LargestAllowedTableSwitch = 25;
+
+// Test whether any instruction in the loop possiblyCalls().
+static bool LoopContainsPossibleCall(MIRGraph& graph, MBasicBlock* header,
+                                     MBasicBlock* backedge) {
+  for (auto i(graph.rpoBegin(header));; ++i) {
+    MOZ_ASSERT(i != graph.rpoEnd(),
+               "Reached end of graph searching for blocks in loop");
+    MBasicBlock* block = *i;
+    if (!block->isMarked()) {
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    for (auto insIter(block->begin()), insEnd(block->end()); insIter != insEnd;
+         ++insIter) {
+      MInstruction* ins = *insIter;
+      if (ins->possiblyCalls()) {
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+        JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "    Possible call found at %s%u", ins->opName(),
+                ins->id());
+#endif
+        return true;
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (block == backedge) {
+      break;
+    }
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+// Tests whether any instruction in the loop is a table-switch with more than
+// `LargestAllowedTableSwitch` successors.  If it returns true, it also
+// returns the actual number of successors of the instruction in question,
+// although that is used only for statistics/debug printing.
+static bool LoopContainsBigTableSwitch(MIRGraph& graph, MBasicBlock* header,
+                                       /*OUT*/ size_t* numSuccessors) {
+  MBasicBlock* backedge = header->backedge();
+
+  for (auto i(graph.rpoBegin(header));; ++i) {
+    MOZ_ASSERT(i != graph.rpoEnd(),
+               "Reached end of graph searching for blocks in loop");
+    MBasicBlock* block = *i;
+    if (!block->isMarked()) {
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    for (auto insIter(block->begin()), insEnd(block->end()); insIter != insEnd;
+         ++insIter) {
+      MInstruction* ins = *insIter;
+      if (ins->isTableSwitch() &&
+          ins->toTableSwitch()->numSuccessors() > LargestAllowedTableSwitch) {
+        *numSuccessors = ins->toTableSwitch()->numSuccessors();
+        return true;
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (block == backedge) {
+      break;
+    }
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+// When a nested loop has no exits back into what would be its parent loop,
+// MarkLoopBlocks on the parent loop doesn't mark the blocks of the nested
+// loop, since they technically aren't part of the loop. However, AliasAnalysis
+// currently does consider such nested loops to be part of their parent
+// loops. Consequently, we can't use IsInLoop on dependency() values; we must
+// test whether a dependency() is *before* the loop, even if it is not
+// technically in the loop.
+static bool IsBeforeLoop(MDefinition* ins, MBasicBlock* header) {
+  return ins->block()->id() < header->id();
+}
+
+// Test whether the given instruction is inside the loop (and thus not
+// loop-invariant).
+static bool IsInLoop(MDefinition* ins) { return ins->block()->isMarked(); }
+
+// Test whether the given instruction is cheap and not worth hoisting unless
+// one of its users will be hoisted as well.
+static bool RequiresHoistedUse(const MDefinition* ins, bool hasCalls) {
+  if (ins->isBox()) {
+    MOZ_ASSERT(!ins->toBox()->input()->isBox(),
+               "Box of a box could lead to unbounded recursion");
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  // Integer constants are usually cheap and aren't worth hoisting on their
+  // own, in general. Floating-point constants typically are worth hoisting,
+  // unless they'll end up being spilled (eg. due to a call).
+  if (ins->isConstant() && (!IsFloatingPointType(ins->type()) || hasCalls)) {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  return false;
+}
+
+// Test whether the given instruction has any operands defined within the loop.
+static bool HasOperandInLoop(MInstruction* ins, bool hasCalls) {
+  // An instruction is only loop invariant if it and all of its operands can
+  // be safely hoisted into the loop preheader.
+  for (size_t i = 0, e = ins->numOperands(); i != e; ++i) {
+    MDefinition* op = ins->getOperand(i);
+
+    if (!IsInLoop(op)) {
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    if (RequiresHoistedUse(op, hasCalls)) {
+      // Recursively test for loop invariance. Note that the recursion is
+      // bounded because we require RequiresHoistedUse to be set at each
+      // level.
+      if (!HasOperandInLoop(op->toInstruction(), hasCalls)) {
+        continue;
+      }
+    }
+
+    return true;
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+// Test whether the given instruction is hoistable, ignoring memory
+// dependencies.
+static bool IsHoistableIgnoringDependency(MInstruction* ins, bool hasCalls) {
+  return ins->isMovable() && !ins->isEffectful() &&
+         !HasOperandInLoop(ins, hasCalls);
+}
+
+// Test whether the given instruction has a memory dependency inside the loop.
+static bool HasDependencyInLoop(MInstruction* ins, MBasicBlock* header) {
+  // Don't hoist if this instruction depends on a store inside the loop.
+  if (MDefinition* dep = ins->dependency()) {
+    return !IsBeforeLoop(dep, header);
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+// Test whether the given instruction is hoistable.
+static bool IsHoistable(MInstruction* ins, MBasicBlock* header, bool hasCalls) {
+  return IsHoistableIgnoringDependency(ins, hasCalls) &&
+         !HasDependencyInLoop(ins, header);
+}
+
+// In preparation for hoisting an instruction, hoist any of its operands which
+// were too cheap to hoist on their own.
+static void MoveDeferredOperands(MInstruction* ins, MInstruction* hoistPoint,
+                                 bool hasCalls) {
+  // If any of our operands were waiting for a user to be hoisted, make a note
+  // to hoist them.
+  for (size_t i = 0, e = ins->numOperands(); i != e; ++i) {
+    MDefinition* op = ins->getOperand(i);
+    if (!IsInLoop(op)) {
+      continue;
+    }
+    MOZ_ASSERT(RequiresHoistedUse(op, hasCalls),
+               "Deferred loop-invariant operand is not cheap");
+    MInstruction* opIns = op->toInstruction();
+
+    // Recursively move the operands. Note that the recursion is bounded
+    // because we require RequiresHoistedUse to be set at each level.
+    MoveDeferredOperands(opIns, hoistPoint, hasCalls);
+
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+    JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM,
+            "      Hoisting %s%u (now that a user will be hoisted)",
+            opIns->opName(), opIns->id());
+#endif
+
+    opIns->block()->moveBefore(hoistPoint, opIns);
+    opIns->setBailoutKind(BailoutKind::LICM);
+  }
+}
+
+static void VisitLoopBlock(MBasicBlock* block, MBasicBlock* header,
+                           MInstruction* hoistPoint, bool hasCalls) {
+  for (auto insIter(block->begin()), insEnd(block->end()); insIter != insEnd;) {
+    MInstruction* ins = *insIter++;
+
+    if (!IsHoistable(ins, header, hasCalls)) {
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+      if (IsHoistableIgnoringDependency(ins, hasCalls)) {
+        JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM,
+                "      %s%u isn't hoistable due to dependency on %s%u",
+                ins->opName(), ins->id(), ins->dependency()->opName(),
+                ins->dependency()->id());
+      }
+#endif
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    // Don't hoist a cheap constant if it doesn't enable us to hoist one of
+    // its uses. We want those instructions as close as possible to their
+    // use, to minimize register pressure.
+    if (RequiresHoistedUse(ins, hasCalls)) {
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+      JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "      %s%u will be hoisted only if its users are",
+              ins->opName(), ins->id());
+#endif
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    // Hoist operands which were too cheap to hoist on their own.
+    MoveDeferredOperands(ins, hoistPoint, hasCalls);
+
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+    JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "      Hoisting %s%u", ins->opName(), ins->id());
+#endif
+
+    // Move the instruction to the hoistPoint.
+    block->moveBefore(hoistPoint, ins);
+    ins->setBailoutKind(BailoutKind::LICM);
+  }
+}
+
+static void VisitLoop(MIRGraph& graph, MBasicBlock* header) {
+  MInstruction* hoistPoint = header->loopPredecessor()->lastIns();
+
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+  JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "  Visiting loop with header block%u, hoisting to %s%u",
+          header->id(), hoistPoint->opName(), hoistPoint->id());
+#endif
+
+  MBasicBlock* backedge = header->backedge();
+
+  // This indicates whether the loop contains calls or other things which
+  // clobber most or all floating-point registers. In such loops,
+  // floating-point constants should not be hoisted unless it enables further
+  // hoisting.
+  bool hasCalls = LoopContainsPossibleCall(graph, header, backedge);
+
+  for (auto i(graph.rpoBegin(header));; ++i) {
+    MOZ_ASSERT(i != graph.rpoEnd(),
+               "Reached end of graph searching for blocks in loop");
+    MBasicBlock* block = *i;
+    if (!block->isMarked()) {
+      continue;
+    }
+
+#ifdef JS_JITSPEW
+    JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "    Visiting block%u", block->id());
+#endif
+
+    VisitLoopBlock(block, header, hoistPoint, hasCalls);
+
+    if (block == backedge) {
+      break;
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+bool jit::LICM(MIRGenerator* mir, MIRGraph& graph) {
+  JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "Beginning LICM pass");
+
+  // Iterate in RPO to visit outer loops before inner loops. We'd hoist the
+  // same things either way, but outer first means we do a little less work.
+  for (auto i(graph.rpoBegin()), e(graph.rpoEnd()); i != e; ++i) {
+    MBasicBlock* header = *i;
+    if (!header->isLoopHeader()) {
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    bool canOsr;
+    size_t numBlocks = MarkLoopBlocks(graph, header, &canOsr);
+
+    if (numBlocks == 0) {
+      JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM,
+              "  Skipping loop with header block%u -- contains zero blocks",
+              header->id());
+      continue;
+    }
+
+    // There are various reasons why we might choose not to LICM a given loop:
+    //
+    // (a) Hoisting out of a loop that has an entry from the OSR block in
+    //     addition to its normal entry is tricky.  In theory we could clone
+    //     the instruction and insert phis.  In practice we don't bother.
+    //
+    // (b) If the loop contains a large number of blocks, we play safe and
+    //     punt, in order to reduce the risk of creating excessive register
+    //     pressure by hoisting lots of values out of the loop.  In a larger
+    //     loop there's more likely to be duplication of invariant expressions
+    //     within the loop body, and that duplication will be GVN'd but only
+    //     within the scope of the loop body, so there's less loss from not
+    //     lifting them out of the loop entirely.
+    //
+    // (c) If the loop contains a multiway switch with many successors, there
+    //     could be paths with low probabilities, from which LICMing will be a
+    //     net loss, especially if a large number of values are hoisted out.
+    //     See bug 1708381 for a spectacular example and bug 1712078 for
+    //     further discussion.
+    //
+    // It's preferable to perform test (c) only if (a) and (b) pass since (c)
+    // is more expensive to determine -- requiring a visit to all the MIR
+    // nodes -- than (a) or (b), which only involve visiting all blocks.
+
+    bool doVisit = true;
+    if (canOsr) {
+      JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM, "  Skipping loop with header block%u due to OSR",
+              header->id());
+      doVisit = false;
+    } else if (numBlocks > LargestAllowedLoop) {
+      JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM,
+              "  Skipping loop with header block%u "
+              "due to too many blocks (%u > thresh %u)",
+              header->id(), (uint32_t)numBlocks, (uint32_t)LargestAllowedLoop);
+      doVisit = false;
+    } else {
+      size_t switchSize = 0;
+      if (LoopContainsBigTableSwitch(graph, header, &switchSize)) {
+        JitSpew(JitSpew_LICM,
+                "  Skipping loop with header block%u "
+                "due to oversize tableswitch (%u > thresh %u)",
+                header->id(), (uint32_t)switchSize,
+                (uint32_t)LargestAllowedTableSwitch);
+        doVisit = false;
+      }
+    }
+
+    if (doVisit) {
+      VisitLoop(graph, header);
+    }
+
+    UnmarkLoopBlocks(graph, header);
+
+    if (mir->shouldCancel("LICM (main loop)")) {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+
+  return true;
+}