mirror of
https://github.com/python/cpython
synced 2024-11-05 18:12:54 +00:00
150 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
150 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
# The tier 2 execution engine
|
|
|
|
## General idea
|
|
|
|
When execution in tier 1 becomes "hot", that is the counter for that point in
|
|
the code reaches some threshold, we create an executor and execute that
|
|
instead of the tier 1 bytecode.
|
|
|
|
Since each executor must exit, we also track the "hotness" of those
|
|
exits and attach new executors to those exits.
|
|
|
|
As the program executes, and the hot parts of the program get optimized,
|
|
a graph of executors forms.
|
|
|
|
## Superblocks and Executors
|
|
|
|
Once a point in the code has become hot enough, we want to optimize it.
|
|
Starting from that point we project the likely path of execution,
|
|
using information gathered by tier 1 to guide that projection to
|
|
form a "superblock", a mostly linear sequence of micro-ops.
|
|
Although mostly linear, it may include a single loop.
|
|
|
|
We then optimize this superblock to form an optimized superblock,
|
|
which is equivalent but more efficient.
|
|
|
|
A superblock is a representation of the code we want to execute,
|
|
but it is not in executable form.
|
|
The executable form is known as an executor.
|
|
|
|
Executors are semantically equivalent to the superblock they are
|
|
created from, but are in a form that can be efficiently executable.
|
|
|
|
There are two execution engines for executors, and two types of executors:
|
|
* The hardware which runs machine code executors created by the JIT compiler.
|
|
* The tier 2 interpreter runs bytecode executors.
|
|
|
|
It would be very wasteful to support both a tier 2 interpreter and
|
|
JIT compiler in the same process.
|
|
For now, we will make the choice of engine a configuration option,
|
|
but we could make it a command line option in the future if that would prove useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Tier 2 Interpreter
|
|
|
|
For platforms without a JIT and for testing, we need an interpreter
|
|
for executors. It is similar in design to the tier 1 interpreter, but has a
|
|
different instruction set, and does not adapt.
|
|
|
|
### JIT compiler
|
|
|
|
The JIT compiler converts superblocks into machine code executors.
|
|
These have identical behavior to interpreted executors, except that
|
|
they consume more memory for the generated machine code and are a lot faster.
|
|
|
|
## Transferring control
|
|
|
|
There are three types of control transfer that we need to consider:
|
|
* Tier 1 to tier 2
|
|
* Tier 2 to tier 1
|
|
* One executor to another within tier 2
|
|
|
|
Since we expect the graph of executors to span most of the hot
|
|
part of the program, transfers from one executor to another should
|
|
be the most common.
|
|
Therefore, we want to make those transfers fast.
|
|
|
|
### Tier 2 to tier 2
|
|
|
|
#### Cold exits
|
|
|
|
All side exits start cold and most stay cold, but a few become
|
|
hot. We want to keep the memory consumption small for the many
|
|
cold exits, but those that become hot need to be fast.
|
|
However we cannot know in advance, which will be which.
|
|
|
|
So that tier 2 to tier 2 transfers are fast for hot exits,
|
|
exits must be implemented as executors. In order to patch
|
|
executor exits when they get hot, a pointer to the current
|
|
executor must be passed to the exit executor.
|
|
|
|
#### Handling reference counts
|
|
|
|
There must be an implicit reference to the currently executing
|
|
executor, otherwise it might be freed.
|
|
Consequently, we must increment the reference count of an
|
|
executor just before executing it, and decrement it just after
|
|
executing it.
|
|
|
|
We want to minimize the amount of data that is passed from
|
|
one executor to the next. In the JIT, this reduces the number
|
|
of arguments in the tailcall, freeing up registers for other uses.
|
|
It is less important in the interpreter, but following the same
|
|
design as the JIT simplifies debugging and is good for performance.
|
|
|
|
Provided that we incref the new executor before executing it, we
|
|
can jump directly to the code of the executor, without needing
|
|
to pass a reference to that executor object.
|
|
However, we do need a reference to the previous executor,
|
|
so that it can be decref'd and for handling of cold exits.
|
|
To avoid messing up the JIT's register allocation, we pass a
|
|
reference to the previous executor in the thread state's
|
|
`previous_executor` field.
|
|
|
|
#### The interpreter
|
|
|
|
The tier 2 interpreter has a variable `current_executor` which
|
|
points to the currently live executor. When transferring from executor
|
|
`A` to executor `B` we do the following:
|
|
(Initially `current_executor` points to `A`, and the refcount of
|
|
`A` is elevated by one)
|
|
|
|
1. Set the instruction pointer to start at the beginning of `B`
|
|
2. Increment the reference count of `B`
|
|
3. Start executing `B`
|
|
|
|
We also make the first instruction in `B` do the following:
|
|
1. Set `current_executor` to point to `B`
|
|
2. Decrement the reference count of `A` (`A` is referenced by `tstate->previous_executor`)
|
|
|
|
The net effect of the above is to safely decrement the refcount of `A`,
|
|
increment the refcount of `B` and set `current_executor` to point to `B`.
|
|
|
|
#### In the JIT
|
|
|
|
Transferring control from one executor to another is done via tailcalls.
|
|
|
|
The compiled executor should do the same, except that there is no local
|
|
variable `current_executor`.
|
|
|
|
### Tier 1 to tier 2
|
|
|
|
Since the executor doesn't know if the previous code was tier 1 or tier 2,
|
|
we need to make a transfer from tier 1 to tier 2 look like a tier 2 to tier 2
|
|
transfer to the executor.
|
|
|
|
We can then perform a tier 1 to tier 2 transfer by setting `current_executor`
|
|
to `None`, and then performing a tier 2 to tier 2 transfer as above.
|
|
|
|
### Tier 2 to tier 1
|
|
|
|
Each micro-op that might exit to tier 1 contains a `target` value,
|
|
which is the offset of the tier 1 instruction to exit to in the
|
|
current code object.
|
|
|
|
## Counters
|
|
|
|
TO DO.
|
|
The implementation will change soon, so there is no point in
|
|
documenting it until then.
|
|
|