Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 09:50:25AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> Let me digest a little bit and do some coding, then I will come back. Some
>> issues can only shown up during in-depth coding. I kind of feel handling
>> aux reference in verifier layer is the part that will still introduce some
>> un-clean code.
>
> I'm still internalizing this discussion. Only want to point out
> that I think it's better to have simpler algorithm that consumes more
> memory and slower than more complex algorithm that is more cpu/memory efficient.
> Here we're aiming at 10x improvement anyway, so extra cpu and memory
> here and there are good trade-off to make.
>
>> >> If there is no dead insn elimination opt, then we could just adjust
>> >> offsets. When there is insn deleting, I feel the logic becomes more
>> >> complex. One subprog could be completely deleted or partially deleted, so
>> >> I feel just recalculate the whole subprog info as a side-product is
>> >> much simpler.
>> >
>> > What's the situation where entirety of subprog can be deleted?
>>
>> Suppose you have conditional jmp_imm, true path calls one subprog, false
>> path calls the other. If insn walker later found it is also true, then the
>> subprog at false path won't be marked as "seen", so it is entirely deleted.
>>
>> I actually thought it is in theory one subprog could be deleted entirely,
>> so if we support insn deletion inside verifier, then range info like
>> line_info/subprog_info needs to consider one range is deleted.
>
> I don't think dead code elim can remove subprogs.
> cfg check rejects code with dead progs.
cfg check rejects unreachable code based on static analysis while one
subprog passed cfg check could be identified as dead later after runtime
value tracking, after check_cond_jmp_op pruning subprog call in false
path and making the subprog dead?
For example:
static subprog1()
static subprog2()
foo(int mask)
{
if (mask & 0x1)
subprog1();
else
subprog2();
...
}
foo's incoming arg is a mask, and depending on whether the LSB is set, it
calls different init functions, subprog1 or subprog2.
foo might be called with a constant as mask, for example 0x8000. Then if
foo is not called by someone else, subprog1 is dead if there is no other
caller of it.
LLVM is smart enough to optimize out such dead functions if they are only
visible in the same compilation unit, and people might only write code in
such shape when they are encapsulated in a lib. but if case like above is
true, I think it is possible one subprog could be deleted by verifier
entirely.
> I don't think we have a test for such 'dead prog only due to verifier walk'
> situation. I wonder what happens :)
