This is in prepration for other bug fixes.
Clarify the SIL utilities that return canonical address values for
formal access given the address used by some memory operation:
- stripAccessMarkers
- getAddressAccess
- getAccessedAddress
These are closely related to the code in MemAccessUtils.
Make sure passes use these utilities consistently so that
optimizations aren't defeated by normal variations in SIL patterns.
Create an isLetAddress() utility alongside these basic utilities to
make sure it is used consistently with the address corresponding to
formal access. When this query is used inconsistently, it defeats
optimization. It can also cause correctness bugs because some
optimizations assume that 'let' initialization is only performed on a
unique address value.
Functional changes to Memory Behavior:
- An instruction with side effects now conservatively still has side
effects even when the queried value is a 'let'. Let values are
certainly sensitive to side effects, such as the parent object being
deallocated.
- Return the correct MemBehavior for begin/end_access markers.
Tests which check if the optimizer is able to generate a certain code should never be "worked around" by adding command line options.
This defeats the purpose of such tests.
Unfortunately some optimizer deficiencies got unnoticed by adding this option.
to-do: there are more such cases which I didn't fix in this PR yet.
Now we handle this case:
%stack = alloc_stack $Protocol
copy_addr %var to [initialization] %stack
open_existential_addr immutable_access %stack
...
destroy_addr %stack
dealloc_stack %stack
We only do this if we have immutable_access. To be conservative I still only let
the normal whitelist of other instructions through.
I am adding this optimization since I am going to be eliminating a SILGen
peephole so I can enable SIL ownership verification everywhere.
This change could impact Swift programs that previously appeared
well-behaved, but weren't fully tested in debug mode. Now, when running
in release mode, they may trap with the message "error: overlapping
accesses...".
Recent optimizations have brought performance where I think it needs
to be for adoption. More optimizations are planned, and some
benchmarks should be further improved, but at this point we're ready
to begin receiving bug reports. That will help prioritize the
remaining work for Swift 5.
Of the 656 public microbenchmarks in the Swift repository, there are
still several regressions larger than 10%:
TEST OLD NEW DELTA RATIO
ClassArrayGetter2 139 1307 +840.3% **0.11x**
HashTest 631 1233 +95.4% **0.51x**
NopDeinit 21269 32389 +52.3% **0.66x**
Hanoi 1478 2166 +46.5% **0.68x**
Calculator 127 158 +24.4% **0.80x**
Dictionary3OfObjects 391 455 +16.4% **0.86x**
CSVParsingAltIndices2 526 604 +14.8% **0.87x**
Prims 549 626 +14.0% **0.88x**
CSVParsingAlt2 1252 1411 +12.7% **0.89x**
Dictionary4OfObjects 206 232 +12.6% **0.89x**
ArrayInClass 46 51 +10.9% **0.90x**
The common pattern in these benchmarks is to define an array of data
as a class property and to repeatedly access that array through the
class reference. Each of those class property accesses now incurs a
runtime call. Naturally, introducing a runtime call in a loop that
otherwise does almost no work incurs substantial overhead. This is
similar to the issue caused by automatic reference counting. In some
cases, more sophistacated optimization will be able to determine the
same object is repeatedly accessed. Furthermore, the overhead of the
runtime call itself can be improved. But regardless of how well we
optimize, there will always a class of microbenchmarks in which the
runtime check has a noticeable impact.
As a general guideline, avoid performing class property access within
the most performance critical loops, particularly on different objects
in each loop iteration. If that isn't possible, it may help if the
visibility of those class properties is private or internal.
