Code generation/SRT question
Hi Simon,
In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
f_closure as its SRT?
In Cmm syntax
f_entry() {
{ info_tbls: [...
(c1vn,
label: ...
rep: ...
srt: ??]
stack_info: ...
}
{offset
c1vn:
...
}
}
Here should I have `f_closure` in the srt field?
I'd expect yes, but looking at the current SRT code, in
CmmBuildInfoTables.updInfoSRTs, we have this:
(newInfo, srtEntries) = case mapLookup (g_entry g) funSRTEnv of
Nothing ->
-- if we don't add SRT entries to this closure, then we
-- want to set the srt field in its info table as usual
(info_tbl { cit_srt = mapLookup (g_entry g) srt_env }, [])
Just srtEntries -> srtTrace "maybeStaticFun" (ppr res)
(info_tbl { cit_rep = new_rep }, res)
where res = [ CmmLabel lbl | SRTEntry lbl <- srtEntries ]
Here we only update SRT field of the block if we're not adding SRT entries to
the function's closure, so in the example above, because we're using the
function as SRT (and adding SRT entries to its closure) SRT field of c1vn won't
be updated.
Am I missing anything?
Thanks,
Ömer
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: Code generation/SRT question
There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT,
since any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to
f_closure in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make
sense?
The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation actually.
Cheers
Simon
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
> closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
> f_closure as its SRT?
>
> In Cmm syntax
>
> f_entry() {
> { info_tbls: [...
>(c1vn,
> label: ...
> rep: ...
> srt: ??]
>stack_info: ...
> }
> {offset
>c1vn:
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Here should I have `f_closure` in the srt field?
>
> I'd expect yes, but looking at the current SRT code, in
> CmmBuildInfoTables.updInfoSRTs, we have this:
>
> (newInfo, srtEntries) = case mapLookup (g_entry g) funSRTEnv of
>
> Nothing ->
> -- if we don't add SRT entries to this closure, then we
> -- want to set the srt field in its info table as usual
> (info_tbl { cit_srt = mapLookup (g_entry g) srt_env }, [])
>
> Just srtEntries -> srtTrace "maybeStaticFun" (ppr res)
> (info_tbl { cit_rep = new_rep }, res)
> where res = [ CmmLabel lbl | SRTEntry lbl <- srtEntries ]
>
> Here we only update SRT field of the block if we're not adding SRT entries
> to
> the function's closure, so in the example above, because we're using the
> function as SRT (and adding SRT entries to its closure) SRT field of c1vn
> won't
> be updated.
>
> Am I missing anything?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ömer
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
RE: Code generation/SRT question
Omer,
I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear “big
picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong.
·The info table for any closure (top-level or otherwise) has a
(possibly empty) Static Reference Table, SRT.
·The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level closures
that the code for that info table mentions. (In principle the garbage
collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find these references if
they in a dedicated table alongside the code.)
·A top level closure is a CAF if it is born updatable.
·A top level closure is CAFFY if it is a CAF, or mentions another CAFFY
closure.
·An entry in the SRT can point
o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the dynamic heap,
and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure hasn’t been updated, we
should keep alive anything its SRT points to.
o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level closure,
which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable.
·If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is CAFFY, then f’s
SRT should point to g’s closure or (if g is not a CAF) directly to its SRT.
·If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a
pointer to f’s closure in f’s own SRT.
I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain.
All this should be written down somewhere, and perhaps is. But where?
Simon
From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
Sent: 06 January 2020 08:17
To: Ömer Sinan Ağacan
Cc: ghc-devs
Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question
There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT, since
any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to f_closure
in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make sense?
The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation actually.
Cheers
Simon
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Ömer Sinan Ağacan
mailto:omeraga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Simon,
In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
f_closure as its SRT?
In Cmm syntax
f_entry() {
{ info_tbls: [...
(c1vn,
label: ...
rep: ...
srt: ??]
stack_info: ...
}
{offset
c1vn:
...
}
}
Here should I have `f_closure` in the srt field?
I'd expect yes, but looking at the current SRT code, in
CmmBuildInfoTables.updInfoSRTs, we have this:
(newInfo, srtEntries) = case mapLookup (g_entry g) funSRTEnv of
Nothing ->
-- if we don't add SRT entries to this closure, then we
-- want to set the srt field in its info table as usual
(info_tbl { cit_srt = mapLookup (g_entry g) srt_env }, [])
Just srtEntries -> srtTrace "maybeStaticFun" (ppr res)
(info_tbl { cit_rep = new_rep }, res)
where res = [ CmmLabel lbl | SRTEntry lbl <- srtEntries ]
Here we only update SRT field of the block if we're not adding SRT entries to
the function's closure, so in the example above, because we're using the
function as SRT (and adding SRT entries to its closure) SRT field of c1vn won't
be updated.
Am I missing anything?
Thanks,
Ömer
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Re: Code generation/SRT question
We have:
* wiki:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/commentary/rts/storage/gc/cafs
* a huge Note in CmmBuildInfoTables:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler%2Fcmm%2FCmmBuildInfoTables.hs#L42
Maybe we need links to these from other places?
Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation
described in the Note.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 17:50, Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> Omer,
>
>
>
> I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear “big
> picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong.
>
>
>
> ·The *info table* for any *closure* (top-level or otherwise) has
> a (possibly empty) Static Reference Table, *SRT*.
>
> ·The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level
> closures that the *code* for that info table mentions. (In principle
> the garbage collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find these
> references if they in a dedicated table alongside the code.)
>
> ·A top level closure is a *CAF* if it is born updatable.
>
> ·A top level closure is *CAFFY* if it is a CAF, or mentions
> another CAFFY closure.
>
> ·An entry in the SRT can point
>
> o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the dynamic
> heap, and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure hasn’t been
> updated, we should keep alive anything its SRT points to.
>
> o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level
> closure, which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable.
>
> ·If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is CAFFY,
> then f’s SRT should point to g’s closure or (if g is not a CAF) directly to
> its SRT.
>
> ·If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include
> a pointer to f’s closure in f’s own SRT.
>
> I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain.
>
> All this should be written down somewhere, and perhaps is. But where?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* ghc-devs *On Behalf Of *Simon
> Marlow
> *Sent:* 06 January 2020 08:17
> *To:* Ömer Sinan Ağacan
> *Cc:* ghc-devs
> *Subject:* Re: Code generation/SRT question
>
>
>
> There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT,
> since any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to
> f_closure in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make
> sense?
>
>
>
> The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation
> actually.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Ömer Sinan Ağacan
> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
> closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
> f_closure as its SRT?
>
> In Cmm syntax
>
> f_entry() {
> { info_tbls: [...
>(c1vn,
> label: ...
> rep: ...
> srt: ??]
>stack_info: ...
> }
> {offset
>c1vn:
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Here should I have `f_closure` in the srt field?
>
> I'd expect yes, but looking at the current SRT code, in
> CmmBuildInfoTables.updInfoSRTs, we have this:
>
> (newInfo, srtEntries) = case mapLookup (g_entry g) funSRTEnv of
>
> Nothing ->
> -- if we don't add SRT entries to this closure, then we
> -- want to set the srt field in its info table as usual
> (info_tbl { cit_srt = mapLookup (g_entry g) srt_env }, [])
>
> Just srtEntries -> srtTrace "maybeStaticFun" (ppr res)
> (info_tbl { cit_rep = new_rep }, res)
> where res = [ CmmLabel lbl | SRTEntry lbl <- srtEntries ]
>
> Here we only update SRT field of the block if we're not adding SRT entries
> to
> the function's closure, so in the example above, because we're using the
> function as SRT (and adding SRT entries to its closure) SRT field of c1vn
> won't
> be updated.
>
> Am I missing anything?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ömer
>
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
RE: Code generation/SRT question
Aha, great. Well at least [Note SRTs] should point back to the wiki page.
Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation described
in the Note.
Hmm. So is he asking whether f’s SRT should have an entry for itself? No,
that’ would be silly! It would not lead to any more CAFs being reachable.
Omer, maybe we are misunderstanding. But if so, can you cast your question
more precisely in terms of which lines of the wiki page or Note are you asking
about? And let’s make sure that the appropriate bit gets updated when you’ve
nailed the answer
Simon
From: Simon Marlow
Sent: 06 January 2020 18:17
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Ömer Sinan Ağacan ; ghc-devs
Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question
We have:
* wiki:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/commentary/rts/storage/gc/cafs<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.haskell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fwikis%2Fcommentary%2Frts%2Fstorage%2Fgc%2Fcafs&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7221d138c74e4b05984d08d792d4a41f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637139314289573670&sdata=fZXPhhBvsZE2tW40e6hcI3PJr9FRcUHxwUvDlMhCHUo%3D&reserved=0>
* a huge Note in CmmBuildInfoTables:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler%2Fcmm%2FCmmBuildInfoTables.hs#L42<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.haskell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fcompiler%252Fcmm%252FCmmBuildInfoTables.hs%23L42&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C7221d138c74e4b05984d08d792d4a41f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637139314289583627&sdata=Cuf%2BSWWyxVYjeUzEseYjS8RwJ5jaP9aNMv4Ll%2Bl%2B0yQ%3D&reserved=0>
Maybe we need links to these from other places?
Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation described
in the Note.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 17:50, Simon Peyton Jones
mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Omer,
I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear “big
picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong.
•The info table for any closure (top-level or otherwise) has a
(possibly empty) Static Reference Table, SRT.
•The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level closures
that the code for that info table mentions. (In principle the garbage
collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find these references if
they in a dedicated table alongside the code.)
•A top level closure is a CAF if it is born updatable.
•A top level closure is CAFFY if it is a CAF, or mentions another CAFFY
closure.
•An entry in the SRT can point
o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the dynamic heap,
and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure hasn’t been updated, we
should keep alive anything its SRT points to.
o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level closure,
which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable.
•If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is CAFFY, then f’s
SRT should point to g’s closure or (if g is not a CAF) directly to its SRT.
•If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a
pointer to f’s closure in f’s own SRT.
I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain.
All this should be written down somewhere, and perhaps is. But where?
Simon
From: ghc-devs
mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org>> On Behalf
Of Simon Marlow
Sent: 06 January 2020 08:17
To: Ömer Sinan Ağacan mailto:omeraga...@gmail.com>>
Cc: ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>>
Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question
There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT, since
any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to f_closure
in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make sense?
The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation actually.
Cheers
Simon
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Ömer Sinan Ağacan
mailto:omeraga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Simon,
In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
f_closure as its SRT?
In Cmm syntax
f_entry() {
{ info_tbls: [...
(c1vn,
label: ...
rep: ...
srt: ??]
stack_info: ...
}
{offset
c1vn:
...
}
}
Here should I have `f_closure` in the srt field?
I'd expect yes, but looking at the current SRT code, in
CmmBuildInfoTables.updInfoSRTs, we have this:
(newInfo, srtEntries) = case mapLookup (g_entry g) funSRTEnv of
Nothing ->
-- if we don't add SRT entries to this closure, then we
Re: Code generation/SRT question
Hi all,
> There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT, since
> any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to f_closure
> in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make sense?
Makes sense, thanks.
> The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation actually.
Agreed.
> · If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a pointer
> to f’s closure in f’s own SRT.
>
> I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain.
Close, I'm asking whether we should include a pointer to f in f's SRT (when f is
recursive) when we're using f as the SRT (the [FUN] optimisation).
I'll document the code I quoted in my original email with this info.
Thanks,
Ömer
Simon Peyton Jones , 7 Oca 2020 Sal, 00:11
tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> Aha, great. Well at least [Note SRTs] should point back to the wiki page.
>
>
>
> Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation described
> in the Note.
>
> Hmm. So is he asking whether f’s SRT should have an entry for itself? No,
> that’ would be silly! It would not lead to any more CAFs being reachable.
>
>
>
> Omer, maybe we are misunderstanding. But if so, can you cast your question
> more precisely in terms of which lines of the wiki page or Note are you
> asking about? And let’s make sure that the appropriate bit gets updated when
> you’ve nailed the answer
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: Simon Marlow
> Sent: 06 January 2020 18:17
> To: Simon Peyton Jones
> Cc: Ömer Sinan Ağacan ; ghc-devs
> Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question
>
>
>
> We have:
>
> * wiki:
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/commentary/rts/storage/gc/cafs
>
> * a huge Note in CmmBuildInfoTables:
> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler%2Fcmm%2FCmmBuildInfoTables.hs#L42
>
>
>
> Maybe we need links to these from other places?
>
>
>
> Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation described
> in the Note.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 17:50, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> Omer,
>
>
>
> I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear “big
> picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong.
>
>
>
> ·The info table for any closure (top-level or otherwise) has a
> (possibly empty) Static Reference Table, SRT.
>
> ·The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level closures
> that the code for that info table mentions. (In principle the garbage
> collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find these references if
> they in a dedicated table alongside the code.)
>
> ·A top level closure is a CAF if it is born updatable.
>
> ·A top level closure is CAFFY if it is a CAF, or mentions another
> CAFFY closure.
>
> ·An entry in the SRT can point
>
> o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the dynamic
> heap, and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure hasn’t been updated,
> we should keep alive anything its SRT points to.
>
> o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level closure,
> which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable.
>
> ·If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is CAFFY, then
> f’s SRT should point to g’s closure or (if g is not a CAF) directly to its
> SRT.
>
> ·If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a
> pointer to f’s closure in f’s own SRT.
>
> I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain.
>
> All this should be written down somewhere, and perhaps is. But where?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
> Sent: 06 January 2020 08:17
> To: Ömer Sinan Ağacan
> Cc: ghc-devs
> Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question
>
>
>
> There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT, since
> any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to
> f_closure in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make
> sense?
>
>
>
> The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation actually.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 09:35, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> In Cmm if I have a recursive group of functions f and g, and I'm using f's
> closure as the SRT for this group, should f's entry block's info table have
> f_closure as its SRT?
>
> In Cmm syntax
>
> f_entry() {
&
RE: Code generation/SRT question
| Close, I'm asking whether we should include a pointer to f in f's SRT | (when f is | recursive) when we're using f as the SRT (the [FUN] optimisation). Definitely not. Doing so would not change the set of reachable CAFs, would it? Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ömer Sinan Ağacan | Sent: 07 January 2020 05:59 | To: Simon Peyton Jones | Cc: Simon Marlow ; ghc-devs | Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question | | Hi all, | | > There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the | SRT, since | > any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to | f_closure | > in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make | sense? | | Makes sense, thanks. | | > The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation | actually. | | Agreed. | | > · If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a | pointer | > to f’s closure in f’s own SRT. | > | > I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not | certain. | | Close, I'm asking whether we should include a pointer to f in f's SRT | (when f is | recursive) when we're using f as the SRT (the [FUN] optimisation). | | I'll document the code I quoted in my original email with this info. | | Thanks, | | Ömer | | Simon Peyton Jones , 7 Oca 2020 Sal, 00:11 | tarihinde şunu yazdı: | > | > Aha, great. Well at least [Note SRTs] should point back to the wiki | page. | > | > | > | > Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation | described in the Note. | > | > Hmm. So is he asking whether f’s SRT should have an entry for | itself? No, that’ would be silly! It would not lead to any more CAFs | being reachable. | > | > | > | > Omer, maybe we are misunderstanding. But if so, can you cast your | question more precisely in terms of which lines of the wiki page or | Note are you asking about? And let’s make sure that the appropriate | bit gets updated when you’ve nailed the answer | > | > | > | > Simon | > | > | > | > From: Simon Marlow | > Sent: 06 January 2020 18:17 | > To: Simon Peyton Jones | > Cc: Ömer Sinan Ağacan ; ghc-devs | > Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question | > | > | > | > We have: | > | > * wiki: | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitl | ab.haskell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fwikis%2Fcommentary%2Frts%2Fstorage%2Fgc%2 | Fcafs&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cba8ca780e8cb4803d53 | 008d79336b5ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63713973549 | 8781862&sdata=tz51aoG0hxYD8IMV0CTubLxuDnSO22pl9IU%2Bh6KxrGg%3D& | ;reserved=0 | > | > * a huge Note in CmmBuildInfoTables: | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitl | ab.haskell.org%2Fghc%2Fghc%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fcompiler%252Fcmm%252FCmmB | uildInfoTables.hs%23L42&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cb | a8ca780e8cb4803d53008d79336b5ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1 | %7C0%7C637139735498781862&sdata=FymrjC9QgtuQM0AS0ZtV3yTec0hqFxYuKa | 55XNqihNs%3D&reserved=0 | > | > | > | > Maybe we need links to these from other places? | > | > | > | > Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation | described in the Note. | > | > | > | > Cheers | > | > Simon | > | > | > | > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 17:50, Simon Peyton Jones | wrote: | > | > Omer, | > | > | > | > I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear | “big picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong. | > | > | > | > ·The info table for any closure (top-level or otherwise) has | a (possibly empty) Static Reference Table, SRT. | > | > ·The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level | closures that the code for that info table mentions. (In principle | the garbage collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find | these references if they in a dedicated table alongside the code.) | > | > ·A top level closure is a CAF if it is born updatable. | > | > ·A top level closure is CAFFY if it is a CAF, or mentions | another CAFFY closure. | > | > ·An entry in the SRT can point | > | > o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the | dynamic heap, and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure | hasn’t been updated, we should keep alive anything its SRT points to. | > | > o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level | closure, which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable. | > | > ·If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is | CAFFY,
Re: Code generation/SRT question
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 05:59, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: > Hi all, > > > There's no need to set the srt field of f_info if f_closure is the SRT, > since > > any reference to f_info in the code will give rise to a reference to > f_closure > > in the SRT corresponding to that code fragment. Does that make sense? > > Makes sense, thanks. > > > The use of a closure as an SRT is really quite a nice optimisation > actually. > > Agreed. > > > · If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to include a > pointer > > to f’s closure in f’s own SRT. > > > > I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain. > > Close, I'm asking whether we should include a pointer to f in f's SRT > (when f is > recursive) when we're using f as the SRT (the [FUN] optimisation). > I think your original question was slightly different, it was about f's info table: > should f's entry block's info table have f_closure as its SRT? anyway, the answer to both questions is "no." Cheers Simon > I'll document the code I quoted in my original email with this info. > > Thanks, > > Ömer > > Simon Peyton Jones , 7 Oca 2020 Sal, 00:11 > tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > > > Aha, great. Well at least [Note SRTs] should point back to the wiki > page. > > > > > > > > Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation > described in the Note. > > > > Hmm. So is he asking whether f’s SRT should have an entry for itself? > No, that’ would be silly! It would not lead to any more CAFs being > reachable. > > > > > > > > Omer, maybe we are misunderstanding. But if so, can you cast your > question more precisely in terms of which lines of the wiki page or Note > are you asking about? And let’s make sure that the appropriate bit gets > updated when you’ve nailed the answer > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > From: Simon Marlow > > Sent: 06 January 2020 18:17 > > To: Simon Peyton Jones > > Cc: Ömer Sinan Ağacan ; ghc-devs < > ghc-devs@haskell.org> > > Subject: Re: Code generation/SRT question > > > > > > > > We have: > > > > * wiki: > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/commentary/rts/storage/gc/cafs > > > > * a huge Note in CmmBuildInfoTables: > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler%2Fcmm%2FCmmBuildInfoTables.hs#L42 > > > > > > > > Maybe we need links to these from other places? > > > > > > > > Omer's question is referring specifically to the [FUN] optimisation > described in the Note. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 17:50, Simon Peyton Jones > wrote: > > > > Omer, > > > > > > > > I think I’m not understanding all the details, but I have a clear “big > picture”. Simon can correct me if I’m wrong. > > > > > > > > ·The info table for any closure (top-level or otherwise) has a > (possibly empty) Static Reference Table, SRT. > > > > ·The SRT for an info table identifies the static top level > closures that the code for that info table mentions. (In principle the > garbage collector could parse the code! But it’s easier to find these > references if they in a dedicated table alongside the code.) > > > > ·A top level closure is a CAF if it is born updatable. > > > > ·A top level closure is CAFFY if it is a CAF, or mentions > another CAFFY closure. > > > > ·An entry in the SRT can point > > > > o To a top-level updatable closure. This may now point into the > dynamic heap, and is what we want to keep alive. If the closure hasn’t > been updated, we should keep alive anything its SRT points to. > > > > o Directly to another SRT (or info table?) for a CAFFY top-level > closure, which is a bit faster if we know the thing is non-updatable. > > > > ·If a function f calls a top-level function g, and g is CAFFY, > then f’s SRT should point to g’s closure or (if g is not a CAF) directly to > its SRT. > > > > ·If f is top level, and calls itself, there is no need to > include a pointer to f’s closure in f’s own SRT. > > > > I think this last point is the one you are asking, but I’m not certain. > > > > All this should be written down somewhere, and perhaps is. But where? > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > From: ghc-devs On Beha
