On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:41 AM Gary Lin <glin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:37:33PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:54 AM Gary Lin <glin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > * pass to emit the final image.
> > > */
> > > - for (pass = 0; pass < 20 || image; pass++) {
> > > - proglen = do_jit(prog, addrs, image, oldproglen, &ctx);
> > > + for (pass = 0; pass < MAX_PASSES || image; pass++) {
> > > + if (!padding && pass >= PADDING_PASSES)
> > > + padding = true;
> > > + proglen = do_jit(prog, addrs, image, oldproglen, &ctx, padding);
> >
> > I'm struggling to reconcile the discussion we had before holidays with
> > the discussion you guys had in v2:
> >
> > >> What is the rationale for the latter when JIT is called again for subprog to fill in relative
> > >> call locations?
> > >>
> > > Hmmmm, my thinking was that we only enable padding for those programs
> > > which are already padded before. But, you're right. For the programs
> > > converging without padding, enabling padding won't change the final
> > > image, so it's safe to always set "padding" to true for the extra pass.
> > >
> > > Will remove the "padded" flag in v3.
> >
> > I'm not following why "enabling padding won't change the final image"
> > is correct.
> > Say the subprog image converges without padding.
> > Then for subprog we call JIT again.
> > Now extra_pass==true and padding==true.
> > The JITed image will be different.
> Actually no.
>
> > The test in patch 3 should have caught it, but it didn't,
> > because it checks for a subprog that needed padding.
> > The extra_pass needs to emit insns exactly in the right spots.
> > Otherwise jump targets will be incorrect.
> > The saved addrs[] array is crucial.
> > If extra_pass emits different things the instruction starts won't align
> > to places where addrs[] expects them to be.
> >
> When calculating padding bytes, if the image already converges, the
> emitted instruction size just matches (addrs[i] - addrs[i-1]), so
> emit_nops() emits 0 byte, and the image doesn't change.
I see. You're right. That's very tricky.
The patch set doesn't apply cleanly.
Could you please rebase and add a detailed comment about this logic?
Also please add comments why we check:
nops != 0 && nops != 4
nops != 0 && nops != 2 && nops != 5
nops != 0 && nops != 3
None of it is obvious.
Does your single test cover all combinations of numbers?
