1=====================================
2Garbage Collection Safepoints in LLVM
3=====================================
4
5.. contents::
6   :local:
7   :depth: 2
8
9Status
10=======
11
12This document describes a set of extensions to LLVM to support garbage
13collection.  By now, these mechanisms are well proven with commercial java
14implementation with a fully relocating collector having shipped using them.
15There are a couple places where bugs might still linger; these are called out
16below.
17
18They are still listed as "experimental" to indicate that no forward or backward
19compatibility guarantees are offered across versions.  If your use case is such
20that you need some form of forward compatibility guarantee, please raise the
21issue on the llvm-dev mailing list.
22
23LLVM still supports an alternate mechanism for conservative garbage collection
24support using the ``gcroot`` intrinsic.  The ``gcroot`` mechanism is mostly of
25historical interest at this point with one exception - its implementation of
26shadow stacks has been used successfully by a number of language frontends and
27is still supported.
28
29Overview & Core Concepts
30========================
31
32To collect dead objects, garbage collectors must be able to identify
33any references to objects contained within executing code, and,
34depending on the collector, potentially update them.  The collector
35does not need this information at all points in code - that would make
36the problem much harder - but only at well-defined points in the
37execution known as 'safepoints' For most collectors, it is sufficient
38to track at least one copy of each unique pointer value.  However, for
39a collector which wishes to relocate objects directly reachable from
40running code, a higher standard is required.
41
42One additional challenge is that the compiler may compute intermediate
43results ("derived pointers") which point outside of the allocation or
44even into the middle of another allocation.  The eventual use of this
45intermediate value must yield an address within the bounds of the
46allocation, but such "exterior derived pointers" may be visible to the
47collector.  Given this, a garbage collector can not safely rely on the
48runtime value of an address to indicate the object it is associated
49with.  If the garbage collector wishes to move any object, the
50compiler must provide a mapping, for each pointer, to an indication of
51its allocation.
52
53To simplify the interaction between a collector and the compiled code,
54most garbage collectors are organized in terms of three abstractions:
55load barriers, store barriers, and safepoints.
56
57#. A load barrier is a bit of code executed immediately after the
58   machine load instruction, but before any use of the value loaded.
59   Depending on the collector, such a barrier may be needed for all
60   loads, merely loads of a particular type (in the original source
61   language), or none at all.
62
63#. Analogously, a store barrier is a code fragment that runs
64   immediately before the machine store instruction, but after the
65   computation of the value stored.  The most common use of a store
66   barrier is to update a 'card table' in a generational garbage
67   collector.
68
69#. A safepoint is a location at which pointers visible to the compiled
70   code (i.e. currently in registers or on the stack) are allowed to
71   change.  After the safepoint completes, the actual pointer value
72   may differ, but the 'object' (as seen by the source language)
73   pointed to will not.
74
75  Note that the term 'safepoint' is somewhat overloaded.  It refers to
76  both the location at which the machine state is parsable and the
77  coordination protocol involved in bring application threads to a
78  point at which the collector can safely use that information.  The
79  term "statepoint" as used in this document refers exclusively to the
80  former.
81
82This document focuses on the last item - compiler support for
83safepoints in generated code.  We will assume that an outside
84mechanism has decided where to place safepoints.  From our
85perspective, all safepoints will be function calls.  To support
86relocation of objects directly reachable from values in compiled code,
87the collector must be able to:
88
89#. identify every copy of a pointer (including copies introduced by
90   the compiler itself) at the safepoint,
91#. identify which object each pointer relates to, and
92#. potentially update each of those copies.
93
94This document describes the mechanism by which an LLVM based compiler
95can provide this information to a language runtime/collector, and
96ensure that all pointers can be read and updated if desired.
97
98Abstract Machine Model
99^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100
101At a high level, LLVM has been extended to support compiling to an abstract
102machine which extends the actual target with a non-integral pointer type
103suitable for representing a garbage collected reference to an object.  In
104particular, such non-integral pointer type have no defined mapping to an
105integer representation.  This semantic quirk allows the runtime to pick a
106integer mapping for each point in the program allowing relocations of objects
107without visible effects.
108
109This high level abstract machine model is used for most of the optimizer.  As
110a result, transform passes do not need to be extended to look through explicit
111relocation sequence.  Before starting code generation, we switch
112representations to an explicit form.  The exact location chosen for lowering
113is an implementation detail.
114
115Note that most of the value of the abstract machine model comes for collectors
116which need to model potentially relocatable objects.  For a compiler which
117supports only a non-relocating collector, you may wish to consider starting
118with the fully explicit form.
119
120Warning: There is one currently known semantic hole in the definition of
121non-integral pointers which has not been addressed upstream.  To work around
122this, you need to disable speculation of loads unless the memory type
123(non-integral pointer vs anything else) is known to unchanged.  That is, it is
124not safe to speculate a load if doing causes a non-integral pointer value to
125be loaded as any other type or vice versa.  In practice, this restriction is
126well isolated to isSafeToSpeculate in ValueTracking.cpp.
127
128Explicit Representation
129^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
130
131A frontend could directly generate this low level explicit form, but
132doing so may inhibit optimization.  Instead, it is recommended that
133compilers with relocating collectors target the abstract machine model just
134described.
135
136The heart of the explicit approach is to construct (or rewrite) the IR in a
137manner where the possible updates performed by the garbage collector are
138explicitly visible in the IR.  Doing so requires that we:
139
140#. create a new SSA value for each potentially relocated pointer, and
141   ensure that no uses of the original (non relocated) value is
142   reachable after the safepoint,
143#. specify the relocation in a way which is opaque to the compiler to
144   ensure that the optimizer can not introduce new uses of an
145   unrelocated value after a statepoint. This prevents the optimizer
146   from performing unsound optimizations.
147#. recording a mapping of live pointers (and the allocation they're
148   associated with) for each statepoint.
149
150At the most abstract level, inserting a safepoint can be thought of as
151replacing a call instruction with a call to a multiple return value
152function which both calls the original target of the call, returns
153its result, and returns updated values for any live pointers to
154garbage collected objects.
155
156  Note that the task of identifying all live pointers to garbage
157  collected values, transforming the IR to expose a pointer giving the
158  base object for every such live pointer, and inserting all the
159  intrinsics correctly is explicitly out of scope for this document.
160  The recommended approach is to use the :ref:`utility passes
161  <statepoint-utilities>` described below.
162
163This abstract function call is concretely represented by a sequence of
164intrinsic calls known collectively as a "statepoint relocation sequence".
165
166Let's consider a simple call in LLVM IR:
167
168.. code-block:: llvm
169
170  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
171         gc "statepoint-example" {
172    call void ()* @foo()
173    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj
174  }
175
176Depending on our language we may need to allow a safepoint during the execution
177of ``foo``. If so, we need to let the collector update local values in the
178current frame.  If we don't, we'll be accessing a potential invalid reference
179once we eventually return from the call.
180
181In this example, we need to relocate the SSA value ``%obj``.  Since we can't
182actually change the value in the SSA value ``%obj``, we need to introduce a new
183SSA value ``%obj.relocated`` which represents the potentially changed value of
184``%obj`` after the safepoint and update any following uses appropriately.  The
185resulting relocation sequence is:
186
187.. code-block:: llvm
188
189  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
190         gc "statepoint-example" {
191    %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
192    %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 7, i32 7)
193    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated
194  }
195
196Ideally, this sequence would have been represented as a M argument, N
197return value function (where M is the number of values being
198relocated + the original call arguments and N is the original return
199value + each relocated value), but LLVM does not easily support such a
200representation.
201
202Instead, the statepoint intrinsic marks the actual site of the
203safepoint or statepoint.  The statepoint returns a token value (which
204exists only at compile time).  To get back the original return value
205of the call, we use the ``gc.result`` intrinsic.  To get the relocation
206of each pointer in turn, we use the ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic with the
207appropriate index.  Note that both the ``gc.relocate`` and ``gc.result`` are
208tied to the statepoint.  The combination forms a "statepoint relocation
209sequence" and represents the entirety of a parseable call or 'statepoint'.
210
211When lowered, this example would generate the following x86 assembly:
212
213.. code-block:: gas
214
215	  .globl	test1
216	  .align	16, 0x90
217	  pushq	%rax
218	  callq	foo
219  .Ltmp1:
220	  movq	(%rsp), %rax  # This load is redundant (oops!)
221	  popq	%rdx
222	  retq
223
224Each of the potentially relocated values has been spilled to the
225stack, and a record of that location has been recorded to the
226:ref:`Stack Map section <stackmap-section>`.  If the garbage collector
227needs to update any of these pointers during the call, it knows
228exactly what to change.
229
230The relevant parts of the StackMap section for our example are:
231
232.. code-block:: gas
233
234  # This describes the call site
235  # Stack Maps: callsite 2882400000
236	  .quad	2882400000
237	  .long	.Ltmp1-test1
238	  .short	0
239  # .. 8 entries skipped ..
240  # This entry describes the spill slot which is directly addressable
241  # off RSP with offset 0.  Given the value was spilled with a pushq,
242  # that makes sense.
243  # Stack Maps:   Loc 8: Direct RSP     [encoding: .byte 2, .byte 8, .short 7, .int 0]
244	  .byte	2
245	  .byte	8
246	  .short	7
247	  .long	0
248
249This example was taken from the tests for the :ref:`RewriteStatepointsForGC`
250utility pass.  As such, its full StackMap can be easily examined with the
251following command.
252
253.. code-block:: bash
254
255  opt -rewrite-statepoints-for-gc test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC/basics.ll -S | llc -debug-only=stackmaps
256
257Simplifications for Non-Relocating GCs
258^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
259
260Some of the complexity in the previous example is unnecessary for a
261non-relocating collector.  While a non-relocating collector still needs the
262information about which location contain live references, it doesn't need to
263represent explicit relocations.  As such, the previously described explicit
264lowering can be simplified to remove all of the ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic
265calls and leave uses in terms of the original reference value.
266
267Here's the explicit lowering for the previous example for a non-relocating
268collector:
269
270.. code-block:: llvm
271
272  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
273         gc "statepoint-example" {
274    call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
275    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj
276  }
277
278Recording On Stack Regions
279^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
280
281In addition to the explicit relocation form previously described, the
282statepoint infrastructure also allows the listing of allocas within the gc
283pointer list.  Allocas can be listed with or without additional explicit gc
284pointer values and relocations.
285
286An alloca in the gc region of the statepoint operand list will cause the
287address of the stack region to be listed in the stackmap for the statepoint.
288
289This mechanism can be used to describe explicit spill slots if desired.  It
290then becomes the generator's responsibility to ensure that values are
291spill/filled to/from the alloca as needed on either side of the safepoint.
292Note that there is no way to indicate a corresponding base pointer for such
293an explicitly specified spill slot, so usage is restricted to values for
294which the associated collector can derive the object base from the pointer
295itself.
296
297This mechanism can be used to describe on stack objects containing
298references provided that the collector can map from the location on the
299stack to a heap map describing the internal layout of the references the
300collector needs to process.
301
302WARNING: At the moment, this alternate form is not well exercised.  It is
303recommended to use this with caution and expect to have to fix a few bugs.
304In particular, the RewriteStatepointsForGC utility pass does not do
305anything for allocas today.
306
307Base & Derived Pointers
308^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
309
310A "base pointer" is one which points to the starting address of an allocation
311(object).  A "derived pointer" is one which is offset from a base pointer by
312some amount.  When relocating objects, a garbage collector needs to be able
313to relocate each derived pointer associated with an allocation to the same
314offset from the new address.
315
316"Interior derived pointers" remain within the bounds of the allocation
317they're associated with.  As a result, the base object can be found at
318runtime provided the bounds of allocations are known to the runtime system.
319
320"Exterior derived pointers" are outside the bounds of the associated object;
321they may even fall within *another* allocations address range.  As a result,
322there is no way for a garbage collector to determine which allocation they
323are associated with at runtime and compiler support is needed.
324
325The ``gc.relocate`` intrinsic supports an explicit operand for describing the
326allocation associated with a derived pointer.  This operand is frequently
327referred to as the base operand, but does not strictly speaking have to be
328a base pointer, but it does need to lie within the bounds of the associated
329allocation.  Some collectors may require that the operand be an actual base
330pointer rather than merely an internal derived pointer. Note that during
331lowering both the base and derived pointer operands are required to be live
332over the associated call safepoint even if the base is otherwise unused
333afterwards.
334
335If we extend our previous example to include a pointless derived pointer,
336we get:
337
338.. code-block:: llvm
339
340  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
341         gc "statepoint-example" {
342    %gep = getelementptr i8, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj, i64 20000
343    %token = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj, i8 addrspace(1)* %gep)
344    %obj.relocated = call i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %token, i32 7, i32 7)
345    %gep.relocated = call i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %token, i32 7, i32 8)
346    %p = getelementptr i8, i8 addrspace(1)* %gep, i64 -20000
347    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %p
348  }
349
350Note that in this example %p and %obj.relocate are the same address and we
351could replace one with the other, potentially removing the derived pointer
352from the live set at the safepoint entirely.
353
354.. _gc_transition_args:
355
356GC Transitions
357^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
358
359As a practical consideration, many garbage-collected systems allow code that is
360collector-aware ("managed code") to call code that is not collector-aware
361("unmanaged code"). It is common that such calls must also be safepoints, since
362it is desirable to allow the collector to run during the execution of
363unmanaged code. Furthermore, it is common that coordinating the transition from
364managed to unmanaged code requires extra code generation at the call site to
365inform the collector of the transition. In order to support these needs, a
366statepoint may be marked as a GC transition, and data that is necessary to
367perform the transition (if any) may be provided as additional arguments to the
368statepoint.
369
370  Note that although in many cases statepoints may be inferred to be GC
371  transitions based on the function symbols involved (e.g. a call from a
372  function with GC strategy "foo" to a function with GC strategy "bar"),
373  indirect calls that are also GC transitions must also be supported. This
374  requirement is the driving force behind the decision to require that GC
375  transitions are explicitly marked.
376
377Let's revisit the sample given above, this time treating the call to ``@foo``
378as a GC transition. Depending on our target, the transition code may need to
379access some extra state in order to inform the collector of the transition.
380Let's assume a hypothetical GC--somewhat unimaginatively named "hypothetical-gc"
381--that requires that a TLS variable must be written to before and after a call
382to unmanaged code. The resulting relocation sequence is:
383
384.. code-block:: llvm
385
386  @flag = thread_local global i32 0, align 4
387
388  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1) *%obj)
389         gc "hypothetical-gc" {
390
391    %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 0, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 1, i32* @Flag, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
392    %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 7, i32 7)
393    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated
394  }
395
396During lowering, this will result in an instruction selection DAG that looks
397something like:
398
399::
400
401  CALLSEQ_START
402  ...
403  GC_TRANSITION_START (lowered i32 *@Flag), SRCVALUE i32* Flag
404  STATEPOINT
405  GC_TRANSITION_END (lowered i32 *@Flag), SRCVALUE i32 *Flag
406  ...
407  CALLSEQ_END
408
409In order to generate the necessary transition code, the backend for each target
410supported by "hypothetical-gc" must be modified to lower ``GC_TRANSITION_START``
411and ``GC_TRANSITION_END`` nodes appropriately when the "hypothetical-gc"
412strategy is in use for a particular function. Assuming that such lowering has
413been added for X86, the generated assembly would be:
414
415.. code-block:: gas
416
417	  .globl	test1
418	  .align	16, 0x90
419	  pushq	%rax
420	  movl $1, %fs:Flag@TPOFF
421	  callq	foo
422	  movl $0, %fs:Flag@TPOFF
423  .Ltmp1:
424	  movq	(%rsp), %rax  # This load is redundant (oops!)
425	  popq	%rdx
426	  retq
427
428Note that the design as presented above is not fully implemented: in particular,
429strategy-specific lowering is not present, and all GC transitions are emitted as
430as single no-op before and after the call instruction. These no-ops are often
431removed by the backend during dead machine instruction elimination.
432
433Before the abstract machine model is lowered to the explicit statepoint model
434of relocations by the :ref:`RewriteStatepointsForGC` pass it is possible for
435any derived pointer to get its base pointer and offset from the base pointer
436by using the ``gc.get.pointer.base`` and the ``gc.get.pointer.offset``
437intrinsics respectively. These intrinsics are inlined by the
438:ref:`RewriteStatepointsForGC` pass and must not be used after this pass.
439
440
441.. _statepoint-stackmap-format:
442
443Stack Map Format
444================
445
446Locations for each pointer value which may need read and/or updated by
447the runtime or collector are provided in a separate section of the
448generated object file as specified in the PatchPoint documentation.
449This special section is encoded per the
450:ref:`Stack Map format <stackmap-format>`.
451
452The general expectation is that a JIT compiler will parse and discard this
453format; it is not particularly memory efficient.  If you need an alternate
454format (e.g. for an ahead of time compiler), see discussion under
455:ref: `open work items <OpenWork>` below.
456
457Each statepoint generates the following Locations:
458
459* Constant which describes the calling convention of the call target. This
460  constant is a valid :ref:`calling convention identifier <callingconv>` for
461  the version of LLVM used to generate the stackmap. No additional compatibility
462  guarantees are made for this constant over what LLVM provides elsewhere w.r.t.
463  these identifiers.
464* Constant which describes the flags passed to the statepoint intrinsic
465* Constant which describes number of following deopt *Locations* (not
466  operands).  Will be 0 if no "deopt" bundle is provided.
467* Variable number of Locations, one for each deopt parameter listed in the
468  "deopt" operand bundle.  At the moment, only deopt parameters with a bitwidth
469  of 64 bits or less are supported.  Values of a type larger than 64 bits can be
470  specified and reported only if a) the value is constant at the call site, and
471  b) the constant can be represented with less than 64 bits (assuming zero
472  extension to the original bitwidth).
473* Variable number of relocation records, each of which consists of
474  exactly two Locations.  Relocation records are described in detail
475  below.
476
477Each relocation record provides sufficient information for a collector to
478relocate one or more derived pointers.  Each record consists of a pair of
479Locations.  The second element in the record represents the pointer (or
480pointers) which need updated.  The first element in the record provides a
481pointer to the base of the object with which the pointer(s) being relocated is
482associated.  This information is required for handling generalized derived
483pointers since a pointer may be outside the bounds of the original allocation,
484but still needs to be relocated with the allocation.  Additionally:
485
486* It is guaranteed that the base pointer must also appear explicitly as a
487  relocation pair if used after the statepoint.
488* There may be fewer relocation records then gc parameters in the IR
489  statepoint. Each *unique* pair will occur at least once; duplicates
490  are possible.
491* The Locations within each record may either be of pointer size or a
492  multiple of pointer size.  In the later case, the record must be
493  interpreted as describing a sequence of pointers and their corresponding
494  base pointers. If the Location is of size N x sizeof(pointer), then
495  there will be N records of one pointer each contained within the Location.
496  Both Locations in a pair can be assumed to be of the same size.
497
498Note that the Locations used in each section may describe the same
499physical location.  e.g. A stack slot may appear as a deopt location,
500a gc base pointer, and a gc derived pointer.
501
502The LiveOut section of the StkMapRecord will be empty for a statepoint
503record.
504
505Safepoint Semantics & Verification
506==================================
507
508The fundamental correctness property for the compiled code's
509correctness w.r.t. the garbage collector is a dynamic one.  It must be
510the case that there is no dynamic trace such that an operation
511involving a potentially relocated pointer is observably-after a
512safepoint which could relocate it.  'observably-after' is this usage
513means that an outside observer could observe this sequence of events
514in a way which precludes the operation being performed before the
515safepoint.
516
517To understand why this 'observable-after' property is required,
518consider a null comparison performed on the original copy of a
519relocated pointer.  Assuming that control flow follows the safepoint,
520there is no way to observe externally whether the null comparison is
521performed before or after the safepoint.  (Remember, the original
522Value is unmodified by the safepoint.)  The compiler is free to make
523either scheduling choice.
524
525The actual correctness property implemented is slightly stronger than
526this.  We require that there be no *static path* on which a
527potentially relocated pointer is 'observably-after' it may have been
528relocated.  This is slightly stronger than is strictly necessary (and
529thus may disallow some otherwise valid programs), but greatly
530simplifies reasoning about correctness of the compiled code.
531
532By construction, this property will be upheld by the optimizer if
533correctly established in the source IR.  This is a key invariant of
534the design.
535
536The existing IR Verifier pass has been extended to check most of the
537local restrictions on the intrinsics mentioned in their respective
538documentation.  The current implementation in LLVM does not check the
539key relocation invariant, but this is ongoing work on developing such
540a verifier.  Please ask on llvm-dev if you're interested in
541experimenting with the current version.
542
543.. _statepoint-utilities:
544
545Utility Passes for Safepoint Insertion
546======================================
547
548.. _RewriteStatepointsForGC:
549
550RewriteStatepointsForGC
551^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
552
553The pass RewriteStatepointsForGC transforms a function's IR to lower from the
554abstract machine model described above to the explicit statepoint model of
555relocations.  To do this, it replaces all calls or invokes of functions which
556might contain a safepoint poll with a ``gc.statepoint`` and associated full
557relocation sequence, including all required ``gc.relocates``.
558
559Note that by default, this pass only runs for the "statepoint-example" or
560"core-clr" gc strategies.  You will need to add your custom strategy to this
561list or use one of the predefined ones.
562
563As an example, given this code:
564
565.. code-block:: llvm
566
567  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
568         gc "statepoint-example" {
569    call void @foo()
570    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj
571  }
572
573The pass would produce this IR:
574
575.. code-block:: llvm
576
577  define i8 addrspace(1)* @test1(i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
578         gc "statepoint-example" {
579    %0 = call token (i64, i32, void ()*, i32, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf(i64 2882400000, i32 0, void ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 5, i32 0, i32 -1, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i8 addrspace(1)* %obj)
580    %obj.relocated = call coldcc i8 addrspace(1)* @llvm.experimental.gc.relocate.p1i8(token %0, i32 12, i32 12)
581    ret i8 addrspace(1)* %obj.relocated
582  }
583
584In the above examples, the addrspace(1) marker on the pointers is the mechanism
585that the ``statepoint-example`` GC strategy uses to distinguish references from
586non references.  The pass assumes that all addrspace(1) pointers are non-integral
587pointer types.  Address space 1 is not globally reserved for this purpose.
588
589This pass can be used an utility function by a language frontend that doesn't
590want to manually reason about liveness, base pointers, or relocation when
591constructing IR.  As currently implemented, RewriteStatepointsForGC must be
592run after SSA construction (i.e. mem2ref).
593
594RewriteStatepointsForGC will ensure that appropriate base pointers are listed
595for every relocation created.  It will do so by duplicating code as needed to
596propagate the base pointer associated with each pointer being relocated to
597the appropriate safepoints.  The implementation assumes that the following
598IR constructs produce base pointers: loads from the heap, addresses of global
599variables, function arguments, function return values. Constant pointers (such
600as null) are also assumed to be base pointers.  In practice, this constraint
601can be relaxed to producing interior derived pointers provided the target
602collector can find the associated allocation from an arbitrary interior
603derived pointer.
604
605By default RewriteStatepointsForGC passes in ``0xABCDEF00`` as the statepoint
606ID and ``0`` as the number of patchable bytes to the newly constructed
607``gc.statepoint``.  These values can be configured on a per-callsite
608basis using the attributes ``"statepoint-id"`` and
609``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"``.  If a call site is marked with a
610``"statepoint-id"`` function attribute and its value is a positive
611integer (represented as a string), then that value is used as the ID
612of the newly constructed ``gc.statepoint``.  If a call site is marked
613with a ``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"`` function attribute and its
614value is a positive integer, then that value is used as the 'num patch
615bytes' parameter of the newly constructed ``gc.statepoint``.  The
616``"statepoint-id"`` and ``"statepoint-num-patch-bytes"`` attributes
617are not propagated to the ``gc.statepoint`` call or invoke if they
618could be successfully parsed.
619
620In practice, RewriteStatepointsForGC should be run much later in the pass
621pipeline, after most optimization is already done.  This helps to improve
622the quality of the generated code when compiled with garbage collection support.
623
624.. _RewriteStatepointsForGC_intrinsic_lowering:
625
626RewriteStatepointsForGC intrinsic lowering
627^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
628
629As a part of lowering to the explicit model of relocations
630RewriteStatepointsForGC performs GC specific lowering for the following
631intrinsics:
632
633* ``gc.get.pointer.base``
634* ``gc.get.pointer.offset``
635* ``llvm.memcpy.element.unordered.atomic.*``
636* ``llvm.memmove.element.unordered.atomic.*``
637
638There are two possible lowerings for the memcpy and memmove operations:
639GC leaf lowering and GC parseable lowering. If a call is explicitly marked with
640"gc-leaf-function" attribute the call is lowered to a GC leaf call to
641'``__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_*``' or
642'``__llvm_memmove_element_unordered_atomic_*``' symbol. Such a call can not
643take a safepoint. Otherwise, the call is made GC parseable by wrapping the
644call into a statepoint. This makes it possible to take a safepoint during
645copy operation. Note that a GC parseable copy operation is not required to
646take a safepoint. For example, a short copy operation may be performed without
647taking a safepoint.
648
649GC parseable calls to '``llvm.memcpy.element.unordered.atomic.*``',
650'``llvm.memmove.element.unordered.atomic.*``' intrinsics are lowered to calls
651to '``__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_*``',
652'``__llvm_memmove_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_*``' symbols respectively.
653This way the runtime can provide implementations of copy operations with and
654without safepoints.
655
656GC parseable lowering also involves adjusting the arguments for the call.
657Memcpy and memmove intrinsics take derived pointers as source and destination
658arguments. If a copy operation takes a safepoint it might need to relocate the
659underlying source and destination objects. This requires the corresponding base
660pointers to be available in the copy operation. In order to make the base
661pointers available RewriteStatepointsForGC replaces derived pointers with base
662pointer and offset pairs. For example:
663
664.. code-block:: llvm
665
666  declare void @__llvm_memcpy_element_unordered_atomic_safepoint_1(
667    i8 addrspace(1)*  %dest_base, i64 %dest_offset,
668    i8 addrspace(1)*  %src_base, i64 %src_offset,
669    i64 %length)
670
671
672.. _PlaceSafepoints:
673
674PlaceSafepoints
675^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
676
677The pass PlaceSafepoints inserts safepoint polls sufficient to ensure running
678code checks for a safepoint request on a timely manner. This pass is expected
679to be run before RewriteStatepointsForGC and thus does not produce full
680relocation sequences.
681
682As an example, given input IR of the following:
683
684.. code-block:: llvm
685
686  define void @test() gc "statepoint-example" {
687    call void @foo()
688    ret void
689  }
690
691  declare void @do_safepoint()
692  define void @gc.safepoint_poll() {
693    call void @do_safepoint()
694    ret void
695  }
696
697
698This pass would produce the following IR:
699
700.. code-block:: llvm
701
702  define void @test() gc "statepoint-example" {
703    call void @do_safepoint()
704    call void @foo()
705    ret void
706  }
707
708In this case, we've added an (unconditional) entry safepoint poll.  Note that
709despite appearances, the entry poll is not necessarily redundant.  We'd have to
710know that ``foo`` and ``test`` were not mutually recursive for the poll to be
711redundant.  In practice, you'd probably want to your poll definition to contain
712a conditional branch of some form.
713
714At the moment, PlaceSafepoints can insert safepoint polls at method entry and
715loop backedges locations.  Extending this to work with return polls would be
716straight forward if desired.
717
718PlaceSafepoints includes a number of optimizations to avoid placing safepoint
719polls at particular sites unless needed to ensure timely execution of a poll
720under normal conditions.  PlaceSafepoints does not attempt to ensure timely
721execution of a poll under worst case conditions such as heavy system paging.
722
723The implementation of a safepoint poll action is specified by looking up a
724function of the name ``gc.safepoint_poll`` in the containing Module.  The body
725of this function is inserted at each poll site desired.  While calls or invokes
726inside this method are transformed to a ``gc.statepoints``, recursive poll
727insertion is not performed.
728
729This pass is useful for any language frontend which only has to support
730garbage collection semantics at safepoints.  If you need other abstract
731frame information at safepoints (e.g. for deoptimization or introspection),
732you can insert safepoint polls in the frontend.  If you have the later case,
733please ask on llvm-dev for suggestions.  There's been a good amount of work
734done on making such a scheme work well in practice which is not yet documented
735here.
736
737
738Supported Architectures
739=======================
740
741Support for statepoint generation requires some code for each backend.
742Today, only X86_64 is supported.
743
744.. _OpenWork:
745
746Limitations and Half Baked Ideas
747================================
748
749Mixing References and Raw Pointers
750^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
751
752Support for languages which allow unmanaged pointers to garbage collected
753objects (i.e. pass a pointer to an object to a C routine) in the abstract
754machine model.  At the moment, the best idea on how to approach this
755involves an intrinsic or opaque function which hides the connection between
756the reference value and the raw pointer.  The problem is that having a
757ptrtoint or inttoptr cast (which is common for such use cases) breaks the
758rules used for inferring base pointers for arbitrary references when
759lowering out of the abstract model to the explicit physical model.  Note
760that a frontend which lowers directly to the physical model doesn't have
761any problems here.
762
763Objects on the Stack
764^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
765
766As noted above, the explicit lowering supports objects allocated on the
767stack provided the collector can find a heap map given the stack address.
768
769The missing pieces are a) integration with rewriting (RS4GC) from the
770abstract machine model and b) support for optionally decomposing on stack
771objects so as not to require heap maps for them.  The later is required
772for ease of integration with some collectors.
773
774Lowering Quality and Representation Overhead
775^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
776
777The current statepoint lowering is known to be somewhat poor.  In the very
778long term, we'd like to integrate statepoints with the register allocator;
779in the near term this is unlikely to happen.  We've found the quality of
780lowering to be relatively unimportant as hot-statepoints are almost always
781inliner bugs.
782
783Concerns have been raised that the statepoint representation results in a
784large amount of IR being produced for some examples and that this
785contributes to higher than expected memory usage and compile times.  There's
786no immediate plans to make changes due to this, but alternate models may be
787explored in the future.
788
789Relocations Along Exceptional Edges
790^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
791
792Relocations along exceptional paths are currently broken in ToT.  In
793particular, there is current no way to represent a rethrow on a path which
794also has relocations.  See `this llvm-dev discussion
795<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/llvm-dev/AE417XjgxvI>`_ for more
796detail.
797
798Support for alternate stackmap formats
799^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
800
801For some use cases, it is
802desirable to directly encode a final memory efficient stackmap format for
803use by the runtime.  This is particularly relevant for ahead of time
804compilers which wish to directly link object files without the need for
805post processing of each individual object file.  While not implemented
806today for statepoints, there is precedent for a GCStrategy to be able to
807select a customer GCMetataPrinter for this purpose.  Patches to enable
808this functionality upstream are welcome.
809
810Bugs and Enhancements
811=====================
812
813Currently known bugs and enhancements under consideration can be
814tracked by performing a `bugzilla search
815<https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=Statepoint%20Bugs&list_id=64342>`_
816for [Statepoint] in the summary field. When filing new bugs, please
817use this tag so that interested parties see the newly filed bug.  As
818with most LLVM features, design discussions take place on `llvm-dev
819<http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>`_, and patches
820should be sent to `llvm-commits
821<http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>`_ for review.
822
823