Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

interpret: don't rely on ScalarPair for overflowed arithmetic #98627

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 4, 2022

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

This is for #97861.
Cc @eddyb

I would like to avoid making this depend on dest.layout.abi to avoid a branch that we are not usually covering both sides of. Though OTOH this seems like fairly straight-forward code. But let's benchmark this option first to see how bad that extra force_allocation really is.

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jun 28, 2022
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 28, 2022

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @lcnr

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 28, 2022
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 28, 2022
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 28, 2022

⌛ Trying commit a863894797f329841331df301bdaf275c0e3ff94 with merge 57aca588d42161a2fd53f97a85fc4eb9f62f8e38...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 28, 2022

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 57aca588d42161a2fd53f97a85fc4eb9f62f8e38 (57aca588d42161a2fd53f97a85fc4eb9f62f8e38)

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Queued 57aca588d42161a2fd53f97a85fc4eb9f62f8e38 with parent baf382e, future comparison URL.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

That is strange, is this making const-prop worse?

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (57aca588d42161a2fd53f97a85fc4eb9f62f8e38): comparison url.

Instruction count

  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
0.2% 0.2% 1
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
7.7% 8.8% 7
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-0.6% -0.7% 6
All 😿🎉 (primary) 0.2% 0.2% 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: mixed results
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
0.3% 0.3% 1
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
3.0% 3.0% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.9% -1.9% 1
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-2.3% -2.3% 1
All 😿🎉 (primary) -0.8% -1.9% 2

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
  • Secondary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regressions found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
8.6% 11.6% 7
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) N/A N/A 0

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2 3

  2. number of relevant changes 2 3

@rustbot rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jun 28, 2022
@bjorn3
Copy link
Member

bjorn3 commented Jun 28, 2022

Cg_clif makes the same assumption with respect to the ScalarPair ABI being used for CheckedBinOp.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

As expected, the CTFE benchmark is not happy.

We probably should go with @eddyb's proposal of checking the dest.layout.abi then... but maybe also fall back to the slow path in debug builds, just to ensure it remains covered? OTOH then maybe we don't cover the fast path enough.^^

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jun 28, 2022

Oh yea this affects const prop. Const prop likely doesn't handle locals backed by an alloc properly and optimizes/lints less

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

All right, I brought back the old code path. It is not used in debug builds.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

Aand I guess CI is using a debug build. Argh.
Is there the equivalent of // ignore-debug for run-make tests?

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Jul 3, 2022

Well, this should fix CI. The only problem is that now the new code path is fully untested...

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Jul 4, 2022

i am fine with that

r=me unless you want to try something else

let pair = Immediate::ScalarPair(val.into(), Scalar::from_bool(overflowed).into());
self.write_immediate(pair, dest)?;
} else {
// With randomized layout, `(int, bool)` might cease to be a `ScalarPair`, so we have to
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe explicitly assert that we're using -Zrandomize-layout (or however the flag is called) here?

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Jul 4, 2022

@bors r=lcnr

@Kixiron I hope you'll make this covered by tests soon? :D

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2022

📌 Commit 0850bad has been approved by lcnr

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 4, 2022
@Kixiron
Copy link
Member

Kixiron commented Jul 4, 2022

Sure, I can totally try to test layout randomization in a later PR

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2022

⌛ Testing commit 0850bad with merge 27eb6d7...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2022

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 27eb6d7 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 4, 2022
@bors bors merged commit 27eb6d7 into rust-lang:master Jul 4, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.64.0 milestone Jul 4, 2022
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (27eb6d7): comparison url.

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found
  • Secondary benchmarks: mixed results
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
2.0% 2.0% 1
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
-1.5% -1.5% 1
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
-4.7% -4.7% 1
All 😿🎉 (primary) -1.5% -1.5% 1

Cycles

Results
  • Primary benchmarks: 😿 relevant regression found
  • Secondary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
mean1 max count2
Regressions 😿
(primary)
3.0% 3.0% 1
Regressions 😿
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(primary)
N/A N/A 0
Improvements 🎉
(secondary)
N/A N/A 0
All 😿🎉 (primary) 3.0% 3.0% 1

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

  1. the arithmetic mean of the percent change 2

  2. number of relevant changes 2

@rustbot rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Jul 5, 2022
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the interpret-arith branch July 6, 2022 02:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants