One of the (major) design goals for the expression JIT was to have the ability to optimize code over the boundaries of individual MoarVM instructions. To enable this, the expression JIT first expands each VM instruction into a graph of lower-level operators. Optimization then means pattern-matching those graphs and replacing them with more efficient expressions.
As a running example, consider the idx operator. This operator takes two inputs (base and element) and a constant parameter scale and computes base+element*scale. This represents one of the operands of an 'indexed load' instruction on x86, typically used to process arrays. Such instructions allow one instruction to be used for what would otherwise be two operations (computing an address and loading a value). However, if the element of the idx operator is a constant, we can replace it instead with the addr instruction, which just adds a constant to a pointer. This is an improvement over idx because we no longer need to load the value of element into a register. This saves both an instruction and valuable register space.
Unfortunately this optimization introduces a bug. (Or, depending on your point of view, brings an existing bug out into the open). The expression JIT code generation process selects instructions for subtrees (tile) of the graph in a bottom-up fashion. These instructions represent the value computed or work performed by that subgraph. (For instance, a tree like (load (addr ? 8) 8) becomes mov ?, qword [?+8]; the question marks are filled in during register allocation). Because an instruction is always represents a tree, and because the graph is an arbitrary directed acyclic graph, the code generator projects that graph as a tree by visiting each operator node only once. So each value is computed once, and that computed value is reused by all later references.
It is worth going into some detail into why the expression graph is not a tree. Aside from transformations that might be introduced by optimizations (e.g. common subexpression elimination), a template may introduce a value that has multiple references via the let: pseudo-operator. See for instance the following (simplified) template:
(let: (($foo (load (local))))
(add $foo (sub $foo (const 1))))
|Both ADD and SUB refer to the same LOAD node|
In this case, both references to $foo point directly to the same load operator. Thus, the graph is not a tree. Another case in which this occurs is during linking of templates into the graph. The output of an instruction is used, if possible, directly as the input for another instruction. (This is the primary way that the expression JIT can get rid of unnecessary memory operations). But there can be multiple instructions that use a value, in which case an operator can have multiple references. Finally, instruction operands are inserted by the compiler and these can have multiple references as well.
If each operator is visited only once during code generation, then this may introduce a problem when combined with another feature - conditional expressions. For instance, if two branches of a conditional expression both refer to the same value (represented by name $foo) then the code generator will only emit code to compute its value when it encounters the first reference. When the code generator encounters $foo for the second time in the other branch, no code will be emitted. This means that in the second branch, $foo will effectively have no defined value (because the code in the first branch is never executed), and wrong values or memory corruption is then the predictable result.
This bug has always existed for as long as the expression JIT has been under development, and in the past the solution has been not to write templates which have this problem. This is made a little easier by a feature the let: operator, in that it inserts a do operator which orders the values that are declared to be computed before the code that references them. So that this is in fact non-buggy:
(let: (($foo (load (local))) # code to compute $foo is emitted here
(add $foo (const 1)) # $foo is just a reference
(sub $foo (const 2)) # and here as well
|The DO node is inserted for the LET operator. It ensures that the value of the LOAD node is computed before the reference in either branch|
Alternatively, if a value $foo is used in the condition of the if operator, you can also be sure that it is available in both sides of the condition.
All these methods rely on the programmer being able to predict when a value will be first referenced and hence evaluated. An optimizer breaks this by design. This means that if I want the JIT optimizer to be successful, my options are:
- Fix the optimizer so as to not remove references that are critical for the correctness of the program
- Modify the input tree so that such references are either copied or moved forward
- Fix the code generator to emit code for a value, if it determines that an earlier reference is not available from the current block.
In other words, I first need to decide where this bug really belongs - in the optimizer, the code generator, or even the IR structure itself. The weakness of the expression IR is that expressions don't really impose a particular order. (This is unlike the spesh IR, which is instruction-based, and in which every instruction has a 'previous' and 'next' pointer). Thus, there really isn't a 'first' reference to a value, before the code generator introduces the concept. This is property is in fact quite handy for optimization (for instance, we can evaluate operands in whatever order is best, rather than being fixed by the input order) - so I'd really like to preserve it. But it also means that the property we're interested in - a value is computed before it is used in, in all possible code flow paths - isn't really expressible by the IR. And there is no obvious local invariant that can be maintained to ensure that this bug does not happen, so any correctness check may have to check the entire graph, which is quite impractical.
I hope this post explains why this is such a tricky problem! I have some ideas for how to get out of this, but I'll reserve those for a later post, since this one has gotten quite long enough. Until next time!