mirror of
https://github.com/danog/ir.git
synced 2024-12-11 16:59:46 +01:00
8668550427
Currently we may just load LLVM module and convert all functions into IR (print it). For better LLVM support IR framework needs support for modules. Some LLVM features are not supported yet (see TODOs in ir_load_llvm.c) .
335 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
335 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# IR - Lightweight JIT Compilation Framework
|
||
|
||
IR Framework is a practical solution for implementing JIT in medium-size projects.
|
||
It defines Intermediate Representaion (IR), provides a simple API for IR construction and
|
||
a set of algorithms for optimization, scheduling, register allocation and code
|
||
generation. The resulting generated in-memory code, may be directly executed.
|
||
|
||
This is not a stable finished product yet. It’s still under active development.
|
||
It was started as a base for development of the next generation JIT compiler for PHP-9,
|
||
but it's completly PHP independent.
|
||
|
||
A presentation about IR framework design and implementation details is available at
|
||
[researchgate](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374470404_IR_JIT_Framework_a_base_for_the_next_generation_JIT_for_PHP).
|
||
|
||
## IR - Intermediate Representation
|
||
|
||
The Framework uses single Medium level Intermediate Representation during all
|
||
phases of optimization, register allocation and code generation. It is inspired
|
||
by Sea-Of-Nodes introduced by Cliff Click [1]. Sea-Of-Nodes is used in Java
|
||
HotSpot Server Compiler, V8 TurboFan JavaScript Compiler, Java Graal
|
||
Compiler...
|
||
|
||
This representation unifies data and control dependencies into a single graph,
|
||
where each instruction represented as a Node and each dependency as an Edge
|
||
between Nodes. There are no classical CFG (Control Flow Graph) with Basic
|
||
Blocks. Instead, IR uses special Control Nodes that start and finish some
|
||
code Regions. The data part of the IR is very similar to SSA (Static Single
|
||
Assignment) form. Each variable may be assigned only once, but except to SSA,
|
||
in our IR, we don’t have any variables, their versions and name. Everything
|
||
is represented by computation Nodes and Edges between them. Of course, we
|
||
have special PHI Node that represents the Phi() function.
|
||
|
||
Despite, our IR is graph based, internally, it’s represented as a plain
|
||
two-way grow-able array of Nodes. Dependency Edge are represented as indexes
|
||
of the other Node. This physical representation is almost completely repeats
|
||
the LuaJIT IR designed by Mike Pall [3].
|
||
|
||
## IR Generation
|
||
|
||
TODO...
|
||
|
||
## IR Optimization
|
||
|
||
In comparison to classical optimizing compilers (like GCC and LLVM), IR
|
||
Framework uses very short optimization pipeline. Together with compact IR
|
||
representation, this makes it extremely fast and allows to generate quite
|
||
good machine code in reasonable time.
|
||
|
||
### Folding
|
||
|
||
Folding is done on the fly, during IR generation. It performs a set of local
|
||
transformations, but because of the graph nature of the IR where most data
|
||
operations (like ADD) are “floating” (not “pinned” to Basic Block), the scope
|
||
of transformations is not limited by Basic Block. It’s important to generate
|
||
IR in a proper (Reverse Post) order, that would emit all Nodes before their
|
||
first usage. (In case of different order the scope of the folding should be
|
||
limited).
|
||
|
||
Folding Engine performs Constants Folding, Copy Propagation, Algebraic
|
||
Simplifications, Algebraic Re-Association and Common Sub-Expression
|
||
Elimination. The simple and fast declarative implementation is borrowed from
|
||
LuaJIT [3].
|
||
|
||
### Sparse Conditional Constant Propagation
|
||
|
||
This pass implements a classical algorithm originally designed by M. N. Wegman
|
||
and F. K. Zadeck [4] for SSA form. Unification of data and control dependencies
|
||
made its implementation even simple. Despite of constant propagation itself
|
||
this pass also performs global Copy Propagation and re-applies the folding rules.
|
||
At the end all the “dead” instructions (instructions that result are not used)
|
||
are replaced with NOPs.
|
||
|
||
### Global Code Motion
|
||
|
||
Now we have to “fix” places of “floating” instructions. This pass builds CFG
|
||
(Control Flow Graph) skeleton and then ”pin” each “floating” instruction to the
|
||
best Basic Block. The algorithm is developed by Cliff Click [2].
|
||
|
||
## Local Scheduling
|
||
|
||
As the final IR transformation pass, we reorder instructions inside each Basic
|
||
Block to satisfy the dependencies. Currently this is done by a simple
|
||
topological sorting.
|
||
|
||
## Target Instruction Selection
|
||
|
||
This is the first target dependent step of compilation. It aims to combine
|
||
instruction Nodes into tiles that allows better instruction fusion. For example
|
||
``10 + a + b * 4`` may be calculated by a single x86 instruction
|
||
``lea 10(%eax, %ebx, 4), %ecx``. The selection is done by a constrained tree
|
||
pattern matching. The current implementation uses simple Max-Munch approach.
|
||
(This may be replaced by a smarter BURS method).
|
||
|
||
## Register Allocation
|
||
|
||
CPU independent implementation of Linear Scan Register Allocation for SSA form
|
||
with second chance bin-packing. [5] [6]
|
||
|
||
## Machine Code Generations
|
||
|
||
IR Framework implements X86_64, x86 and AArch64 back-ends. The current
|
||
implementation uses DynAsm [?]. (In the future, this should be replaced with
|
||
a faster “binary” encoder). Code generator walks throw all instructions of each
|
||
basic blocks and emits some code according to “rules” selected during
|
||
instruction selection pass. It uses registers, selected by register allocator
|
||
and inserts the necessary spill load/store and SSA deconstruction code.
|
||
|
||
## Tooling
|
||
|
||
- Ability to load and save IR in a textual form
|
||
- Ability to visualize IR graph through graphviz dot.
|
||
- Target CPU disassembler for generated code (uses libcapstone [?])
|
||
- GDB/JIT interface to allow debugging of JIT-ed code
|
||
- Linux perf interface to analyze the code performance
|
||
|
||
## LLVM interopability
|
||
|
||
Under development...
|
||
|
||
## IR Example
|
||
|
||
Let's try to generate code for the following function:
|
||
|
||
```c
|
||
int32_t mandelbrot(double x, double y)
|
||
{
|
||
double cr = y - 0.5;
|
||
double ci = x;
|
||
double zi = 0.0;
|
||
double zr = 0.0;
|
||
int i = 0;
|
||
|
||
while(1) {
|
||
i++;
|
||
double temp = zr * zi;
|
||
double zr2 = zr * zr;
|
||
double zi2 = zi * zi;
|
||
zr = zr2 - zi2 + cr;
|
||
zi = temp + temp + ci;
|
||
if (zi2 + zr2 > 16)
|
||
return i;
|
||
if (i > 1000)
|
||
return 0;
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
}
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
This may be done through IR construction API by the following code:
|
||
|
||
```c
|
||
void gen_mandelbrot(ir_ctx *ctx)
|
||
{
|
||
ir_START();
|
||
ir_ref x = ir_PARAM(IR_DOUBLE, "x", 1);
|
||
ir_ref y = ir_PARAM(IR_DOUBLE, "y", 2);
|
||
ir_ref cr = ir_SUB_D(y, ir_CONST_DOUBLE(0.5));
|
||
ir_ref ci = ir_COPY_D(x);
|
||
ir_ref zi = ir_COPY_D(ir_CONST_DOUBLE(0.0));
|
||
ir_ref zr = ir_COPY_D(ir_CONST_DOUBLE(0.0));
|
||
ir_ref i = ir_COPY_I32(ir_CONST_I32(0));
|
||
|
||
ir_ref loop = ir_LOOP_BEGIN(ir_END());
|
||
ir_ref zi_1 = ir_PHI_2(IR_DOUBLE, zi, IR_UNUSED);
|
||
ir_ref zr_1 = ir_PHI_2(IR_DOUBLE, zr, IR_UNUSED);
|
||
ir_ref i_1 = ir_PHI_2(IR_I32, i, IR_UNUSED);
|
||
|
||
ir_ref i_2 = ir_ADD_I32(i_1, ir_CONST_I32(1));
|
||
ir_ref temp = ir_MUL_D(zr_1, zi_1);
|
||
ir_ref zr2 = ir_MUL_D(zr_1, zr_1);
|
||
ir_ref zi2 = ir_MUL_D(zi_1, zi_1);
|
||
ir_ref zr_2 = ir_ADD_D(ir_SUB_D(zr2, zi2), cr);
|
||
ir_ref zi_2 = ir_ADD_D(ir_ADD_D(temp, temp), ci);
|
||
ir_ref if_1 = ir_IF(ir_GT(ir_ADD_D(zi2, zr2), ir_CONST_DOUBLE(16.0)));
|
||
ir_IF_TRUE(if_1);
|
||
ir_RETURN(i_2);
|
||
ir_IF_FALSE(if_1);
|
||
ir_ref if_2 = ir_IF(ir_GT(i_2, ir_CONST_I32(1000)));
|
||
ir_IF_TRUE(if_2);
|
||
ir_RETURN(ir_CONST_I32(0));
|
||
ir_IF_FALSE(if_2);
|
||
ir_ref loop_end = ir_LOOP_END();
|
||
|
||
/* close loop */
|
||
ir_MERGE_SET_OP(loop, 2, loop_end);
|
||
ir_PHI_SET_OP(zi_1, 2, zi_2);
|
||
ir_PHI_SET_OP(zr_1, 2, zr_2);
|
||
ir_PHI_SET_OP(i_1, 2, i_2);
|
||
}
|
||
```
|
||
The textual representation of the IR after system independent optimizations:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
{
|
||
uintptr_t c_1 = 0;
|
||
bool c_2 = 0;
|
||
bool c_3 = 1;
|
||
double c_4 = 0.5;
|
||
double c_5 = 0;
|
||
int32_t c_6 = 0;
|
||
int32_t c_7 = 1;
|
||
double c_8 = 16;
|
||
int32_t c_9 = 1000;
|
||
l_1 = START(l_22);
|
||
double d_2 = PARAM(l_1, "x", 1);
|
||
double d_3 = PARAM(l_1, "y", 2);
|
||
double d_4 = SUB(d_3, c_4);
|
||
l_5 = END(l_1);
|
||
l_6 = LOOP_BEGIN(l_5, l_29);
|
||
double d_7 = PHI(l_6, c_5, d_28);
|
||
double d_8 = PHI(l_6, c_5, d_26);
|
||
int32_t d_9 = PHI(l_6, c_6, d_10);
|
||
int32_t d_10 = ADD(d_9, c_7);
|
||
double d_11 = MUL(d_8, d_8);
|
||
double d_12 = MUL(d_7, d_7);
|
||
double d_13 = ADD(d_12, d_11);
|
||
bool d_14 = GT(d_13, c_8);
|
||
l_15 = IF(l_6, d_14);
|
||
l_16 = IF_TRUE(l_15);
|
||
l_17 = RETURN(l_16, d_10);
|
||
l_18 = IF_FALSE(l_15);
|
||
bool d_19 = GT(d_10, c_9);
|
||
l_20 = IF(l_18, d_19);
|
||
l_21 = IF_TRUE(l_20);
|
||
l_22 = RETURN(l_21, c_6, l_17);
|
||
l_23 = IF_FALSE(l_20);
|
||
double d_24 = MUL(d_7, d_8);
|
||
double d_25 = SUB(d_11, d_12);
|
||
double d_26 = ADD(d_25, d_4);
|
||
double d_27 = ADD(d_24, d_24);
|
||
double d_28 = ADD(d_27, d_2);
|
||
l_29 = LOOP_END(l_23);
|
||
}
|
||
```
|
||
The visualized graph:
|
||
|
||
![IR example](example.svg)
|
||
|
||
The final generated code:
|
||
|
||
```asm
|
||
test:
|
||
subsd .L4(%rip), %xmm1
|
||
xorpd %xmm3, %xmm3
|
||
xorpd %xmm2, %xmm2
|
||
xorl %eax, %eax
|
||
.L1:
|
||
leal 1(%rax), %eax
|
||
movapd %xmm2, %xmm4
|
||
mulsd %xmm2, %xmm4
|
||
movapd %xmm3, %xmm5
|
||
mulsd %xmm3, %xmm5
|
||
movapd %xmm5, %xmm6
|
||
addsd %xmm4, %xmm6
|
||
ucomisd .L5(%rip), %xmm6
|
||
ja .L2
|
||
cmpl $0x3e8, %eax
|
||
jg .L3
|
||
mulsd %xmm2, %xmm3
|
||
subsd %xmm5, %xmm4
|
||
movapd %xmm4, %xmm2
|
||
addsd %xmm1, %xmm2
|
||
addsd %xmm3, %xmm3
|
||
addsd %xmm0, %xmm3
|
||
jmp .L1
|
||
.L2:
|
||
retq
|
||
.L3:
|
||
xorl %eax, %eax
|
||
retq
|
||
.rodata
|
||
.L4:
|
||
.db 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0xe0, 0x3f
|
||
.L5:
|
||
.db 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x30, 0x40
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## PHP JIT based on IR
|
||
|
||
A new experimental JIT for PHP based on IR is developed at [php-ir](https://github.com/dstogov/php-src/tree/php-ir/ext/opcache/jit) branch.
|
||
See [README-IR.md](https://github.com/dstogov/php-src/blob/php-ir/ext/opcache/jit/README-IR.md).
|
||
|
||
### Building and Testing PHP with JIT based on IR Framework
|
||
|
||
Install pre-requested libraries. PHP and their extensions may require different libraries.
|
||
JIT itself needs just **libcapstone** to produce disassembler output.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
sudo dbf install capstone-devel
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Build PHP
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
git clone -b php-ir --single-branch git@github.com:dstogov/php-src.git php-ir
|
||
cd php-ir
|
||
./buildconf --force
|
||
mkdir install
|
||
./configure --with-capstone --prefix=`pwd`/install --with-config-file-path=`pwd`/install/etc
|
||
make
|
||
make install
|
||
mkdir install/etc
|
||
cat > install/etc/php.ini <<EOL
|
||
zend_extension=opcache.so
|
||
opcache.enable=1
|
||
opcache.enable_cli=1
|
||
opcache.optimization_level=-1
|
||
opcache.jit_buffer_size=32M
|
||
opcache.jit=tracing
|
||
opcache.huge_code_pages=1
|
||
EOL
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Check if opcache s loaded
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
sapi/cli/php -v | grep -i opcache
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
See JIT in action
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
sapi/cli/php -d opcache.jit=tracing -d opcache.jit_debug=1 Zend/bench.php
|
||
sapi/cli/php -d opcache.jit=function -d opcache.jit_debug=1 Zend/bench.php
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## References
|
||
|
||
1. C. Click, M. Paleczny. “A Simple Graph-Based Intermediate Representation” In ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Intermediate Representations (IR '95), pages 35-49, Jan. 1995.
|
||
2. C. Click. “Global Code Motion Global Value Numbering” In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 246–257, June 1995
|
||
3. M. Pall. “LuaJIT 2.0 intellectual property disclosure and research opportunities” November 2009 http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-11/msg00089.html
|
||
4. M. N. Wegman and F. K. Zadeck. "Constant propagation with conditional branches" ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(2):181-210, April 1991
|
||
5. C. Wimmer. “Optimized Interval Splitting in a Linear Scan Register Allocator” In VEE '05: Proceedings of the 1st ACM/USENIX international conference on Virtual execution environments, pages 132–141, June 2005
|
||
6. C. Wimmer and M. Franz. “Linear Scan Register Allocation on SSA Form” In CGO '10: Proceedings of the 8-th annual IEEE/ACM international symposium on Code generation and optimization, pages 170–179, April 2010
|