[For previewing, reviewing and testing] Move upvars to locals #135527
+1,380
−633
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift cc @bjorn3 Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #135715) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
I don't think this needs a reviewer? |
dingxiangfei2009
force-pushed
the
move-upvars-to-locals-for-tests
branch
from
3e6a399 to
9603ad6
Compare
|
cc @Darksonn @tmandry @eholk @rust-lang/wg-async Ding here is reworking the layout of coroutines to try to reduce their memory footprint (and that of What do people think? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
For anyone searching for a description of what this PR changes, it's summarized at the top of compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/coroutine/relocate_upvars.rs. |
tmandry
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
Comment on lines
+20
to
+21
| //! The reason is that it is possible that coroutine layout may change and the source memory location of | ||
| //! an upvar may not necessarily be mapped exactly to the same place as in the `Unresumed` state. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we decide the offsets of upvars in Unresumed in the same place as we decide the offset of saved locals? Couldn't we then "backpropagate" the field offsets for each upvar's local as the offset for the corresponding upvar?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for reviewing! I had a backlog of things due to sickness.
True indeed. This statement is completely voided by the work in the second commit. I will reword this section in the following way.
By enabling the feature gate coroutine_new_layout the field offsets of the upvars in Unresumed state are further exactly placed in the same place as their corresponding saved locals, which is guaranteed by the alternative coroutine layout calculator that enters in effect. <... quote the relevant comment/file/etc. ...>
|
I don't personally have any means of performance testing this at the moment. It would be much easier if it landed behind a feature gate. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #135318) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Cc @arielb1 who was also investigated this
…On Wed, Jan 29, 2025, at 7:56 PM, Tyler Mandry wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
In compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/coroutine/relocate_upvars.rs <#135527 (comment)>:
> +//! The reason is that it is possible that coroutine layout may change and the source memory location of
+//! an upvar may not necessarily be mapped exactly to the same place as in the `Unresumed` state.
Don't we decide the offsets of upvars in `Unresumed` in the same place as we decide the offset of saved locals? Couldn't we then "backpropagate" the field offsets for each upvar's local as the offset for the corresponding upvar?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#135527 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABF4ZTFDPQDUNGH5L6MGSL2NF2CHAVCNFSM6AAAAABVG4UUZ2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDKOBSGY4TKMZUHA>.
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
I think it is fair to land with a feature gate so that we can get to play with it. The PR has temporarily disabled the check on the feature gate. However, given that coroutine layout data is keyed individually by their |
dingxiangfei2009
force-pushed
the
move-upvars-to-locals-for-tests
branch
from
9603ad6 to
3a1e04a
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
dingxiangfei2009
force-pushed
the
move-upvars-to-locals-for-tests
branch
from
3a1e04a to
61d4bbd
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Would this be better as a |
|
Are there any issues if only one crate activates it but others do not? if there are no issues, a feature gate seems ok (and easier to use ^^) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #137030) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
A feature doesn't allow turning it on for the whole build, you'd have to fork every single crate that uses async. A -Z flag would be better IMO. |
|
Agreed on a If my understanding is correct, we shouldn't expect any regression from this approach (only upside), but since we currently rely on later passes eliding copies there might be some regression. We could be more aggressive in eliding the copies ourselves, but maybe this is hard. |
|
Thanks for looking into this! I will have time this week to clean this up a bit and I will ask rustbot to set it to ready-for-review. |
dingxiangfei2009
force-pushed
the
move-upvars-to-locals-for-tests
branch
from
61d4bbd to
0ff7e65
Compare
|
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Co-authored-by: Dario Nieuwenhuis <dirbaio@dirbaio.net>
dingxiangfei2009
force-pushed
the
move-upvars-to-locals-for-tests
branch
from
0ff7e65 to
01aa9da
Compare
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Good day, this PR is related to #127522 and it is made easier to the public to test out a new coroutine/
asyncstate machine directly.Prepare the compiler for tests
For starter, you may build the compiler as prescribed in the
rustc-dev-guideinstruction. If a test in the docker container is desirable, you may build this compiler withsrc/ci/docker/run.sh dist-x86_64-linux --devforx86_64and package the compiler with../x distto produce the artifacts inobj/dist-x86_64-linux/build/dist. This Dockerfile gets you a working Rust builder image which allows you to build your Rust applications inbookworm.The state of performance
So far with this patch, I have been studying the performance impact on the cases of
tokio's single- and multi-threaded runtime, as well as a simpleaxumHTTP service. As far as I can see, I can find a change in performance characteristics that are statistically significant, one-sidedp = 0.05.This time, I would like to call for pooling in your valuable assessments and thoughts on this patch. I kindly request experiments from you and hopefully you can provide regression cases with
perf record -e cycles:u,instructions:u,cache-misses:ureports.Thank you all so much! 🙇