When the compiler insert write barriers, the frontend makes
conservative decisions at an early stage. This may have false
positives which result in write barriers for stack writes.
A new phase, writebarrier, is added to the SSA backend, to delay
the decision and eliminate false positives. The frontend still
makes conservative decisions. When building SSA, instead of
emitting runtime calls directly, it emits WB ops (StoreWB,
MoveWB, etc.), which will be expanded to branches and runtime
calls in writebarrier phase. Writes to static locations on stack
are detected and write barriers are removed.
All write barriers of stack writes found by the script from
issue #17330 are eliminated (except two false positives).
Fixes#17330.
Change-Id: I9bd66333da9d0ceb64dcaa3c6f33502798d1a0f8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/31131
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
func f(x, y, z *int) {
a := []*int{x,y,z}
...
}
We used to use:
var tmp [3]*int
a := tmp[:]
a[0] = x
a[1] = y
a[2] = z
Now we do:
var tmp [3]*int
tmp[0] = x
tmp[1] = y
tmp[2] = z
a := tmp[:]
Doesn't sound like a big deal, but the compiler has trouble
eliminating write barriers when using the former method because it
doesn't know that the slice points to the stack. In the latter
method, the compiler knows the array is on the stack and as a result
doesn't emit any write barriers.
This turns out to be extremely common when building ... args, like
for calls fmt.Printf.
Makes go binaries ~1% smaller.
Doesn't have a measurable effect on the go1 fmt benchmarks,
unfortunately.
Fixes#14263
Update #6853
Change-Id: I9074a2788ec9e561a75f3b71c119b69f304d6ba2
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/22395
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Don't write back parts of a slicing operation if they
are unchanged from the source of the slice. For example:
x.s = x.s[0:5] // don't write back pointer or cap
x.s = x.s[:5] // don't write back pointer or cap
x.s = x.s[:5:7] // don't write back pointer
There is more to be done here, for example:
x.s = x.s[:len(x.s):7] // don't write back ptr or len
This CL can't handle that one yet.
Fixes#14855
Change-Id: Id1e1a4fa7f3076dc1a76924a7f1cd791b81909bb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20954
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Make sure we don't generate write barriers in runtime
code that is marked to forbid write barriers.
Implement the optimization that if we're writing a sliced
slice back to the location it came from, we don't need a
write barrier.
Fixes#14784
Change-Id: I04b6a3b2ac303c19817e932a36a3b006de103aaa
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20791
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Currently we generate write barriers when the right side of an
assignment is a global function. This doesn't fall into the existing
case of storing an address of a global because we haven't lowered the
function to a pointer yet.
This write barrier is unnecessary, so eliminate it.
Fixes#13901.
Change-Id: Ibc10e00a8803db0fd75224b66ab94c3737842a79
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20772
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
Type switches need write barriers if the written-to
variable is heap allocated.
For the added needwritebarrier call, the right arg doesn't
really matter, I just pass something that will never disqualify
the write barrier. The left arg is the one that matters.
Fixes#14306
Change-Id: Ic2754167cce062064ea2eeac2944ea4f77cc9c3b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/19481
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
The code generated for x = append(x, v) is roughly:
t := x
if len(t)+1 > cap(t) {
t = grow(t)
}
t[len(t)] = v
len(t)++
x = t
We used to generate this code as Go pseudocode during walk.
Generate it instead as actual instructions during gen.
Doing so lets us apply a few optimizations. The most important
is that when, as in the above example, the source slice and the
destination slice are the same, the code can instead do:
t := x
if len(t)+1 > cap(t) {
t = grow(t)
x = {base(t), len(t)+1, cap(t)}
} else {
len(x)++
}
t[len(t)] = v
That is, in the fast path that does not reallocate the array,
only the updated length needs to be written back to x,
not the array pointer and not the capacity. This is more like
what you'd write by hand in C. It's faster in general, since
the fast path elides two of the three stores, but it's especially
faster when the form of x is such that the base pointer write
would turn into a write barrier. No write, no barrier.
name old mean new mean delta
BinaryTree17 5.68s × (0.97,1.04) 5.81s × (0.98,1.03) +2.35% (p=0.023)
Fannkuch11 4.41s × (0.98,1.03) 4.35s × (1.00,1.00) ~ (p=0.090)
FmtFprintfEmpty 92.7ns × (0.91,1.16) 86.0ns × (0.94,1.11) -7.31% (p=0.038)
FmtFprintfString 281ns × (0.96,1.08) 276ns × (0.98,1.04) ~ (p=0.219)
FmtFprintfInt 288ns × (0.97,1.06) 274ns × (0.98,1.06) -4.94% (p=0.002)
FmtFprintfIntInt 493ns × (0.97,1.04) 506ns × (0.99,1.01) +2.65% (p=0.009)
FmtFprintfPrefixedInt 423ns × (0.97,1.04) 391ns × (0.99,1.01) -7.52% (p=0.000)
FmtFprintfFloat 598ns × (0.99,1.01) 566ns × (0.99,1.01) -5.27% (p=0.000)
FmtManyArgs 1.89µs × (0.98,1.05) 1.91µs × (0.99,1.01) ~ (p=0.231)
GobDecode 14.8ms × (0.98,1.03) 15.3ms × (0.99,1.02) +3.01% (p=0.000)
GobEncode 12.3ms × (0.98,1.01) 11.5ms × (0.97,1.03) -5.93% (p=0.000)
Gzip 656ms × (0.99,1.05) 645ms × (0.99,1.01) ~ (p=0.055)
Gunzip 142ms × (1.00,1.00) 142ms × (1.00,1.00) -0.32% (p=0.034)
HTTPClientServer 91.2µs × (0.97,1.04) 90.5µs × (0.97,1.04) ~ (p=0.468)
JSONEncode 32.6ms × (0.97,1.08) 32.0ms × (0.98,1.03) ~ (p=0.190)
JSONDecode 114ms × (0.97,1.05) 114ms × (0.99,1.01) ~ (p=0.887)
Mandelbrot200 6.11ms × (0.98,1.04) 6.04ms × (1.00,1.01) ~ (p=0.167)
GoParse 6.66ms × (0.97,1.04) 6.47ms × (0.97,1.05) -2.81% (p=0.014)
RegexpMatchEasy0_32 159ns × (0.99,1.00) 171ns × (0.93,1.07) +7.19% (p=0.002)
RegexpMatchEasy0_1K 538ns × (1.00,1.01) 550ns × (0.98,1.01) +2.30% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchEasy1_32 138ns × (1.00,1.00) 135ns × (0.99,1.02) -1.60% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchEasy1_1K 869ns × (0.99,1.01) 879ns × (1.00,1.01) +1.08% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchMedium_32 252ns × (0.99,1.01) 243ns × (1.00,1.00) -3.71% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchMedium_1K 72.7µs × (1.00,1.00) 70.3µs × (1.00,1.00) -3.34% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchHard_32 3.85µs × (1.00,1.00) 3.82µs × (1.00,1.01) -0.81% (p=0.000)
RegexpMatchHard_1K 118µs × (1.00,1.00) 117µs × (1.00,1.00) -0.56% (p=0.000)
Revcomp 920ms × (0.97,1.07) 917ms × (0.97,1.04) ~ (p=0.808)
Template 129ms × (0.98,1.03) 114ms × (0.99,1.01) -12.06% (p=0.000)
TimeParse 619ns × (0.99,1.01) 622ns × (0.99,1.01) ~ (p=0.062)
TimeFormat 661ns × (0.98,1.04) 665ns × (0.99,1.01) ~ (p=0.524)
See next CL for combination with a similar optimization for slice.
The benchmarks that are slower in this CL are still faster overall
with the combination of the two.
Change-Id: I2a7421658091b2488c64741b4db15ab6c3b4cb7e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/9812
Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
We can expand the test cases as we discover problems.
This is some basic tests plus all the things I got wrong
in some recent work.
Change-Id: Id875fcfaf74eb087ae42b441fe47a34c5b8ccb39
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/9158
Reviewed-by: Rick Hudson <rlh@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
