This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

COFF: ICF a section and its associated pdata section as a unit.
ClosedPublic

Authored by pcc on May 9 2018, 9:07 PM.

Details

Summary

This is needed to avoid merging two functions with identical
instructions but different xdata. It also reduces binary size by
deduplicating identical pdata sections.

Fixes PR35337.

Event Timeline

pcc created this revision.May 9 2018, 9:07 PM
rnk accepted this revision.May 10 2018, 11:36 AM

Looks good to me, but let @ruiu review for more style feedback.

It might be worth pointing out somewhere in comments that it's the xdata section that might differ, and the pdata section will refer to the xdata, which makes it appear different during ICF.

We're convinced .pdata is special, right? What about other applications of comdat associative metadata, like ASan global metadata? ASan typically doesn't register metadata for readonly globals, but if it did register different metadata for two readonly globals with the same contents that got folded by ICF, would that be correct?

The other main application of associative comdats is debug info. If we ICF two functions together, we probably want to toss the debug info for the function we choose to discard, otherwise the debugger might get confused. This needs testing and experimentation, but it something to think about, since this is another instance of metadata using labels to refer to offsets in ICF'ed code.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 10 2018, 11:36 AM
pcc added a comment.May 10 2018, 5:57 PM
In D46672#1094887, @rnk wrote:

Looks good to me, but let @ruiu review for more style feedback.

It might be worth pointing out somewhere in comments that it's the xdata section that might differ, and the pdata section will refer to the xdata, which makes it appear different during ICF.

We're convinced .pdata is special, right? What about other applications of comdat associative metadata, like ASan global metadata?

I'm not sure that I'm convinced. A simpler rule that I can think of based on the observed behaviour is that

  1. an associative reference is like a relocation from the parent to the child
  2. pdata is special in the same way as xdata and vtables are: it is a magic section name that allows ICF.

We can see this by taking my example from crbug.com/838449#c8 and renaming the pdata section:

$ sed -e 's/pdata/qdata/g' 1.obj > 1q.obj

C:\src\tmp\pdata-test>link /noentry /opt:icf 1q.obj  2.obj /dll /map:1q.map /include:?f1@@YAXXZ /include:?f2@@YAXXZ
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 14.12.25835.0
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.


C:\src\tmp\pdata-test>wsl grep f[12] 1q.map
 0001:00000000       ?f1@@YAXXZ                 0000000180001000 f   1q.obj
 0001:00000010       ?f2@@YAXXZ                 0000000180001010 f   1q.obj
 0002:0000007c       $unwind$?f2@@YAXXZ         000000018000207c     1q.obj
 0002:0000007c       $unwind$?f1@@YAXXZ         000000018000207c     1q.obj
 0003:00000000       $qdata$?f1@@YAXXZ          0000000180003000     1q.obj
 0003:0000000c       $qdata$?f2@@YAXXZ          000000018000300c     1q.obj

ASan typically doesn't register metadata for readonly globals, but if it did register different metadata for two readonly globals with the same contents that got folded by ICF, would that be correct?

I think that if asan named its associative globals like vtables to get around the ICF rodata rule, or if we started embedding address-significant information in the symbol table to allow for safe ICF, we would probably would want the "relocation" behaviour.

The other main application of associative comdats is debug info. If we ICF two functions together, we probably want to toss the debug info for the function we choose to discard, otherwise the debugger might get confused. This needs testing and experimentation, but it something to think about, since this is another instance of metadata using labels to refer to offsets in ICF'ed code.

Yes. In fact, debug info may be the special case here: a mismatching debug info shouldn't inhibit ICF.

I'll see how easy it is to implement the "simple" rule. If it doesn't work out, let's go with this patch.

ruiu accepted this revision.May 10 2018, 6:02 PM

LGTM

lld/COFF/ICF.cpp
174–175

Maybe it is a bit cleaner if you simply pass A->Pdata and B->PData to equalsConstant (you would have to make a change to equalsConstant to allow a nullptr.)

pcc updated this revision to Diff 146357.May 11 2018, 10:43 AM
  • Better rule
pcc added a comment.May 11 2018, 10:45 AM

Okay, this seems to be the rule that MSVC uses. With this, ICF seems to work as well as before. PTAL.

ruiu added inline comments.May 11 2018, 11:03 AM
lld/COFF/ICF.cpp
133

Is there any way to write this without creating temporary std::vector objects?

smeenai added inline comments.May 11 2018, 11:22 AM
lld/COFF/ICF.cpp
141

Is there a possibility of ChildClasses(A) and ChildClasses(B) having the same contents but in a different order? Would we want to ICF in that case? (Since right now the == is going to be doing an ordered comparison.)

pcc added inline comments.May 11 2018, 11:30 AM
lld/COFF/ICF.cpp
133

We could use a pair of iterators instead, but then we would have to handle skipping the debug/CFG sections in the right places, and I'm not sure that it's worth it.

141

It's theoretically possible, but it turns out that clang-cl (and probably cl as well?) always emits the associative sections in the same order. Initially I had a sort on the vector here, but I removed it because it turned out that it didn't make a difference when linking Chrome. MSVC doesn't seem to care about the order, so it would probably be fine to put it back.

ruiu accepted this revision.May 11 2018, 7:11 PM

LGTM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.