Skips implementing it for the x86 JIT because that's a bit of a
nightmare to think about.
The ARM64 implementation requires sequential registers which means if
the incoming sources aren't sequential then we need to move the sources
in to the two vector temporaries. This is fine since we have zero-cycle
vector renames and the alternative is slower.
It turns out that pure SSA isn't a great choice for the sort of emulation we do.
On one hand, it discards information from the guest binary's register allocation
that would let us skip stuff. On the other hand, it doesn't have nearly as many
benefits in this setting as in a traditional compiler... We really *don't* want
to do global RA or really any global optimization. We assume the guest optimizer
did its job for x86, we just need to clean up the mess left from going x86 ->
arm. So we just need enough SSA to peephole optimize.
My concrete IR proposals are that:
* SSA values must be killed in the same block that they are defined.
* Explicit LoadGPR/StoreGPR instructions can be used for global persistence.
* LoadGPR/StoreGPR are eliminated in favour of SSA within a block.
This has a lot of nice properties for our setting:
* Except for some internal REP instruction emulation (etc), we already have
registers for everything that escapes block boundaries, so this form is very
easy to go into -- straightforward local value numbering, not a full into
SSA pass.
* Spilling is entirely local (if it happens at all), since everything is in
registers at block boundaries. This is excellent, because Belady's algorithm
lets us spill nearly optimally in linear-time for individual blocks. (And
the global version of Belady's algorithm is massively more complicated...)
A nice fit for a JIT.
Relatedly, it turns out allowing spilling is probably a decent decision,
since the same spiller code can be used to rematerialize constants in a
straightforward way. This is an issue with the current RA.
* Register assignment is entirely local. For the same reason, we can assign
registers "optimally" in linear time & memory (e.g. with linear scan). And
the impl is massively simpler than a full blown SSA-based tree scan RA. For
example, we don't have to worry about parallel copies or coalescing phis or
anything. Massively nicer algorithm to deal with.
* SSA value names can be block local which makes the validation implicit :~)
It also has remarkably few drawbacks, because we didn't want to do CFG global
optimization anyway given our time budget and the diminishng returns. The few
global optimizations we might want (flag escape analysis?) don't necessarily
benefit from pure SSA anyway.
Anyway, we explicitly don't want phi nodes in any of this. They're currently
unused. Let's just remove them so nobody gets the bright idea of changing that.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
The number of times the implicit size calculation in GPR operations has
bit us is immeasurable and was a mistake from the start of the project.
The vector based operations never had this problem since they were
explicitly sized for a long time now.
This converts the base IR operations to be explicitly sized, but adds
implicit sized helpers for the moment while we work on removing implicit
usage from the OpcodeDispatcher.
Should be NFC at this moment but it is a big enough change that I want
it in before the "real" work starts.
This takes the two independent VSXT{U}N{2,} operations and merges them
in to a single IR operations.
In some cases this can result in a more optimal implementation since
there is no need for moves inbetween.
VRev32 matches Arm64 semantics directly.
LoadNamedVectorConstant allows FEX to quickly load "named constants".
This will allow us to have specific hardcoded vector constant values
that we can load with a ldr(State)+ldr(Value) and will be more abused in
the future.
This also allows us to do a very simple optimization in the future where
we can optimize away redundant loads of these loads if they are used
multiple times in the same block. (Not implemented here).
This matches x86 vector shift behaviour closely for ps{rl,ra,ll}{w,d,q}
where the vector is shifted by a scalar value that is 64-bits wide.
Anything larger than the element size will set that element to zero.
With SVE we have some new wide element shifts that match this behaviour
exactly (except supports wide shift sources rather than scalar).
This is a significant improvement even on platforms that only support
128-bit SVE.
This is a bit of tricky operation where due to our our usage of SSA, the
incoming source isn't guaranteed to end its live-range at this
instruction.
This gives us a behaviour where to be optimal we need to take different
paths depending on if the incoming address register is the same as the
destination node.
Once we have form of RA constraints or non-SSA IR form that can
guarantee this restriction then this will go away.
Due to Intel dropping support for legacy segment registers[1] there is a
concern that this will break legacy 32-bit software that is doing some
magic segment register handling.
Adds some simple telemetry for 32-bit applications that when they
encounter an instruction that sets the segment register or uses a
segment register that the JIT will do a /relatively/ quick four
instruction check to see if it is not a null segment.
It's not enough to just check if the segment index is 0 or not, 32-bit
Linux software starts with non-zero segment register indexes but the LDT
for each segment index is a null-descriptor.
Once the segment address is loaded, the IR operation will do a quick
check against zero and if it /isn't/ zero then set the telemetry value.
A very minor optimization that segment registers only get checked once
per block to ensure overhead stays low.
[1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/envisioning-future-simplified-architecture.html
- 3.6 - Restricted Subset of Segmentation
- `Bases are supported for FS, GS, GDT, IDT, LDT, and TSS
registers; the base for CS, DS, ES, and SS is ignored for 32-bit
mode, same as 64-bit mode (treated as zero).`
- 4.2.17 - MOV to Segment Register
- Will fault if SS is written (Breaking anything that writes to
SS).
- Will not fault if CS, DS, ES are written (Thus it sets the
segment but gets ignored due to 3.6).
It is not an external component, and it makes paths needlessly long.
Ryan seemed amenable to this when we discussed on IRC earlier.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Ryan Houdek