Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for SwiftSelf<T> in Mono JIT and Interpreter #104171

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jul 19, 2024

Conversation

kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR adds Mono support for SwiftSelf<T> in the Swift calling convention. This type enables the correct passing of frozen value types in instance methods in Swift.

Changes

This PR includes both Mono JIT and Interpreter changes. The lowering has been modified to handle SwiftSelf<T> as any struct if it can be enregistered. Otherwise, the generic value is unboxed and handled as SwiftSelf.

Verification

The runtime tests in Interop/Swift/SwiftSelf should verify the functionality.

Additional notes

Additional testing coverage will be added as we progress with projection tooling changes.

Contributes to #102079

Copy link
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @steveisok, @lambdageek
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

Copy link

Pipelines were unable to run due to time out waiting for the pull request to finish merging.

Comment on lines 3704 to 3705
MonoClass *param_klass = mono_class_from_mono_type_internal (method->signature->params [i]);
bool is_swift_self_generic = (strcmp(param_klass->name, "SwiftSelf`1") == 0) && (strcmp(param_klass->name_space, "System.Runtime.InteropServices.Swift") == 0);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not the right way to check that param_klass is an instance of a known generic. (you should not rely on the name/name_space of a generic instance being the same as the gtd; also you need to check that the image of the definition is CoreLib).

you want something like:

GENERATE_TRY_GET_CLASS_WITH_CACHE_DECL(swift_self_t);

GENERATE_TRY_GET_CLASS_WITH_CACHE(swift_self_t, "System.Runtime.InteropServices.Swift", "SwiftSelf`1");

gboolean
is_swift_self_inst (MonoClass *klass)
{
  MonoGenericClass *gklass = mono_class_try_get_generic_class (klass);
  if (!gklass)
    return FALSE;
  return gklass->container_class == mono_class_try_get_swift_self_t_class ();
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! Please let me know if you prefer a helper method (as you outlined). Since there are already many helper methods, I am wondering if this would improve readability.

if ((strcmp (klass->name, "SwiftSelf`1") == 0) && (strcmp (klass->name_space, "System.Runtime.InteropServices.Swift") == 0))
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (swift_self);
else
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.typed_reference_class);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know this bit isn't new, but did we add TypedReference as a dynamic dependency to SwiftSelf / SwiftSelf<T> for the linker?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think so. Would the build fail if it's not added as a dynamic dependency?

Copy link
Member

@lambdageek lambdageek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure hardcoding "8" is an improvement in readability

Also I'm not sure I understood what was happening with SwiftSelf/TypedReference

ainfo->storage = ArgValuetypeInReg;
ainfo->pair_storage [0] = ArgInIReg;
ainfo->pair_storage [1] = ArgNone;
ainfo->nregs = 1;
ainfo->pair_regs [0] = GINT32_TO_UINT8 (AMD64_R13);
ainfo->pair_size [0] = size;
ainfo->pair_size [0] = 8;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is this 8? is that the size of a byref?

I know this code is arch specific, but SIZEOF_VOID_P might be better.

Also what about TypedReference it's not size 8 on mono:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/mono/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/TypedReference.Mono.cs

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Initially, I tried to pass SwiftSelf<T> here, instead of SwiftSelf and encountered issues with size. Since it is transformed to SwiftSelf if not enregistered, I've reverted all mini-<arch> changes.

ainfo->storage = ArgVtypeInIRegs;
ainfo->reg = ARMREG_R20;
ainfo->nregs = 1;
ainfo->size = size;
ainfo->size = 8;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto. i'm not sure what 8 means here

if ((strcmp (klass->name, "SwiftSelf`1") == 0) && (strcmp (klass->name_space, "System.Runtime.InteropServices.Swift") == 0))
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (swift_self);
else
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.typed_reference_class);
Copy link
Member

@lambdageek lambdageek Jun 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually... what is this? TypedReference& is not ok since it's a byref of a ByRefLike type. we don't really support that.

Do you just need some pointer-sized type in here as a placeholder?

mono_defaults.int_class is usually ok

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, we need some pointer-sized type in here as a placeholder. Updated according to your suggestion.

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos requested a review from jkurdek July 9, 2024 11:33
if (gklass && (gklass->container_class == swift_self_t))
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (swift_self);
else
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.int_class);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is it mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.int_class) instead of mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.typed_reference_class) or mono_class_get_byref_type (klass); ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jkurdek TypedReference& is kind of weird since it's a ref of a byreflike struct. I don't remember if we support that in .NET yet. it might make Mono do something weird.

mono_class_get_byref_type (klass) might be ok.

@kotlarmilos I think it's probably worth adding some comment about the placeholder type here - it's arbitrary and not really meant to exactly capture the exact type - all we care about is that it's some kind of pointer-like argument.

Copy link
Member

@lambdageek lambdageek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems ok to me, although i'm trusting that the Swift ABI is being respected - I'm not an expert on that part

if (gklass && (gklass->container_class == swift_self_t))
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (swift_self);
else
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (mono_defaults.int_class);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As with other comments, don't we just care here that the type is a simple pointer type? Why are we using a byref of a class that doesn't represents the actual contents. Shouldn't we have here, both in case of SwiftSelf and SwiftSelf<T>, the type being just m_class_get_byval_arg (mono_defaults.int_class), aka a naked pointer passed by value.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If SwiftSelf<T> can't be lowered, then it should be passed in the same manner as SwiftSelf, via the context register. This ensures that the get_call_info allocates the correct register, instead of any argument register.

MonoClassField *klass_fields = m_class_get_fields (klass);
MonoInst *swift_self_base_address = struct_base_address;
struct_base_address = mono_compile_create_var (cfg, mono_get_int_type (), OP_LOCAL);
MONO_EMIT_NEW_LOAD_MEMBASE_OP (cfg, OP_ADD_IMM, struct_base_address->dreg, swift_self_base_address->dreg, klass_fields->offset);
Copy link
Member

@BrzVlad BrzVlad Jul 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't klass_fields->offset always be 0 ? Also I think it is offset with sizeof (MonoObject)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, you are right. I was missing sizeof (MonoObject).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the difference between sizeof (MonoObject) and MONO_ABI_SIZEOF (MonoObject)? I've been seeing more of the latter in when dealing with loading structs so I wonder if it's the same here...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the only difference is that MONO_ABI_SIZEOF (MonoObject) works with cross compiler. So if you are say on arm64 and you aot compile code for an arm target, sizeof (MonoObject) is 16 but in generated code you need 8 since you emit code for arm target. In this context it should be MONO_ABI_SIZEOF (MonoObject).

Loading a field from a vt type is offset with sizeof (MonoObject) only if the vt is boxed. This looks fishy to me here. Are you sure this code path is being hit and tested properly ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't the type boxed here? The struct T is boxed in SwiftSelf<T>, and we need to load the address of T as the argument.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So SwiftSelf<T> is a struct containing a single field of type T. Therefore the T field is stored at offset 0 in the struct. This struct is passed around by value in C# code, without any boxing happening. Boxing means that the vt is converted to an object and its value copied to that object. Unlike normal valuetypes, objects on the heap contain a sync block, which is this _MonoObject header. If you want to access the value of the T field in a boxed instance, then you would need to offset by the size of this header. I don't see swift interoping dealing with any boxing.

If I'm correct and this code is wrong then this also raises the question on why no tests are failing. Maybe this path is not properly tested and it needs further attention ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right. The MONO_EMIT_NEW_LOAD_MEMBASE_OP was used with non-load instructions. I verified this change locally and confirmed that this code path is being executed. It works with an offset of 0.

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

/azp run runtime-extra-platforms

Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

{
MonoInst *swift_self_base_address = struct_base_address;
struct_base_address = mono_compile_create_var (cfg, mono_get_int_type (), OP_LOCAL);
MONO_EMIT_NEW_BIALU_IMM (cfg, OP_ADD_IMM, struct_base_address->dreg, swift_self_base_address->dreg, 0);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After all these discussions, it raises the trivial question. What is the point of this then ? We are just adding 0 to an address :)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The instruction was not necessary and was converting SwiftSelf<T> to IntPtr. Using SwiftSelf<T> in the ARGLOADA was resulting in an assertion in the IR at some point. I've removed this instruction and updated the ARGLOADA instruction to be a pointer-like type. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions.

if (gklass && (gklass->container_class == swift_self_t)) {
ptype = mono_class_get_byref_type (swift_self);
// The ARGLOADA should be a pointer-like type.
struct_base_address->klass = mono_defaults.int_class;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is needed. Is it leading to failures, maybe it was just failing with previous wrong code ? It seems to me in other places the klass information holds the type that we get the ref for and not really the ref type.

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

/ba-g Timeout failures on WASM.

@kotlarmilos
Copy link
Member Author

Merging this PR to be feature complete. We will continue investigation on why the ARGLOADA should require a pointer-like type for SwiftSelf<T>.

@kotlarmilos kotlarmilos merged commit 3648b56 into dotnet:main Jul 19, 2024
123 of 126 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 19, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants