Bug 148345 - jsc-tailcall: Specialized thunks need to save / restore callee save "tag" registers
Summary: jsc-tailcall: Specialized thunks need to save / restore callee save "tag" reg...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 148666
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: JavaScriptCore (show other bugs)
Version: Other
Hardware: All All
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Michael Saboff
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 148099
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2015-08-21 17:09 PDT by Michael Saboff
Modified: 2015-09-14 11:00 PDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (5.79 KB, patch)
2015-08-22 20:43 PDT, Michael Saboff
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Saboff 2015-08-21 17:09:49 PDT
The specialized thunks, like charAt use the tagTypeNumberRegister and/or tagMaskRegister.  These are both callee saves, but the thunks assume that they have the special values.  If the thunk is called by an FTL generated function, those registers do not have the right value.  At the beginning of these thunks, the current values need to be saved and the tag values materialized.  The values need to be restores before returning from the thunk.
Comment 1 Michael Saboff 2015-08-22 20:43:07 PDT
Created attachment 259731 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Basile Clement 2015-08-24 10:51:36 PDT
Comment on attachment 259731 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=259731&action=review

LGTM

> Source/JavaScriptCore/jit/SpecializedThunkJIT.h:196
> +        void emitSaveTagCalleeSavesAndMaterializeTagRegisters()

Nit: Maybe it's just because English is not my native language, but this name was confusing to me as I read it as "emit save, tag callee saves, and materialize tag registers". Maybe something like "emitSaveThenMaterializeTagRegisters" would be clearer, I don't know.

> Source/JavaScriptCore/jit/ThunkGenerators.cpp:227
> +    else if (entryType == EnterViaJump) {

Just curious, would it be hard to do the register restoration before the jump instead? It would probably be a less contrived dependency (and wouldn't prevent jumping from places that didn't save the tag registers).
Comment 3 Michael Saboff 2015-08-24 14:33:06 PDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 259731 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=259731&action=review
> 
> LGTM
> 
> > Source/JavaScriptCore/jit/SpecializedThunkJIT.h:196
> > +        void emitSaveTagCalleeSavesAndMaterializeTagRegisters()
> 
> Nit: Maybe it's just because English is not my native language, but this
> name was confusing to me as I read it as "emit save, tag callee saves, and
> materialize tag registers". Maybe something like
> "emitSaveThenMaterializeTagRegisters" would be clearer, I don't know.

I'll rename this and the other function to emitSaveThenMaterializeTagRegisters() and emitRestoreSavedTagRegisters().

> > Source/JavaScriptCore/jit/ThunkGenerators.cpp:227
> > +    else if (entryType == EnterViaJump) {
> 
> Just curious, would it be hard to do the register restoration before the
> jump instead? It would probably be a less contrived dependency (and wouldn't
> prevent jumping from places that didn't save the tag registers).

The problem is that most of the places where we tailCall (EnterViaJump) to this thunk are from conditional jumps.  We could create some other common landing place to jump to, restore the callee saves and then jump here, but the specialized thunks are the only place that uses the EnterViaJump path.
Comment 4 Michael Saboff 2015-08-24 15:40:57 PDT
Committed r188889: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/188889>
Comment 5 Basile Clement 2015-08-31 18:10:46 PDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 148666 ***
Comment 6 Csaba Osztrogonác 2015-09-14 11:00:56 PDT
Comment on attachment 259731 [details]
Patch

Cleared review? from attachment 259731 [details] so that this bug does not appear in http://webkit.org/pending-review.  If you would like this patch reviewed, please attach it to a new bug (or re-open this bug before marking it for review again).