-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
Use pkgimages for coverage & malloc tracking by ignoring native code in tracked packages #52123
Use pkgimages for coverage & malloc tracking by ignoring native code in tracked packages #52123
Conversation
// If a pkgimage or sysimage is being generated, disable tracking. | ||
// This means sysimage build or pkgimage precompilation workloads aren't tracked. | ||
auto do_coverage = [&] (bool in_user_code, bool is_tracked) { | ||
return (coverage_mode == JL_LOG_ALL || | ||
return (jl_generating_output() == 0 && | ||
(coverage_mode == JL_LOG_ALL || | ||
(in_user_code && coverage_mode == JL_LOG_USER) || | ||
(is_tracked && coverage_mode == JL_LOG_PATH)); | ||
(is_tracked && coverage_mode == JL_LOG_PATH))); | ||
}; | ||
auto do_malloc_log = [&] (bool in_user_code, bool is_tracked) { | ||
return (malloc_log_mode == JL_LOG_ALL || | ||
return (jl_generating_output() == 0 && | ||
(malloc_log_mode == JL_LOG_ALL || | ||
(in_user_code && malloc_log_mode == JL_LOG_USER) || | ||
(is_tracked && malloc_log_mode == JL_LOG_PATH)); | ||
(is_tracked && malloc_log_mode == JL_LOG_PATH))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is to avoid baking tracking-enabled native code into pkgimages, which is likely undesirable (though arguably reasonable in CI environments)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps it could be allowed if --check-bounds=yes
is also forced, as it is by Pkg.test, given that is unlikely in non-test sessions.
And in that case we wouldn't need to zero out the fptrs
from the pkgimage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe @Keno has an idea on how to handle --check-bounds=yes
.
IIUC the problem is that --check-bounds
doesn't just change the LLVM code, but actually the behaviour of inference and co. See #50239 (comment)
So right now I don't see away around us needing at least those two copies.
else | ||
# If pkgimage is set, malloc_log and code_coverage should not | ||
@assert opts.malloc_log == 0 && opts.code_coverage == 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we should check that malloc_log/code_coverage don't reach the generating-ouput
process?
We may consider backporting this to 1.10.1 |
1a76013
to
3fdbf4f
Compare
956cd59
to
0b05e3b
Compare
0b05e3b
to
1fdaace
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Oh, I think I missed what this PR was doing. This needs be reverted as it is entirely illegal to zero this memory here and it cannot be permitted to do so without some difficult changes to codegen: Lines 3771 to 3773 in a96726b
It is causing the following test to fail an assert, which is why CI has been red for awhile:
Where the offending CodeInstance was created by StyledStrings and later attempted to be accessed by Test. |
Isn't this very similar to 02699bb ? But I agree we need to "taint" any package that depends on this package and also ignore their native code, but that seems complicated (also what happens if we have a code instance duplication and one of them is coming from a pkgimg with disabled native code) Right now pkgimage assumes that the fptr inside the codeinstance is valid and we can load and jump to it. We would need to maybe change calls across images to something like #52797 so that we can support calling a CI with deleted fptrs. Oof. |
This should fix the assertion failure that has been plaguing the Pkg tests, as discussed in #52123 (comment)
When we use options like code coverage, we can't use the native code present in the cache file since it is not instrumented. PR #52123 introduced the capability of skipping the native code during loading, but created the issue that subsequent packages could have an explicit or implicit dependency on the native code. PR #53439 tainted the current process by setting `use_sysimage_native_code`, but this flag is propagated to subprocesses and lead to a regression in test time. Move this to a process local flag to avoid the regression. In the future we might be able to change the calling convention for cross-image calls to `invoke(ci::CodeInstance, args...)` instead of `ci.fptr(args...)` to handle native code not being present.
When we use options like code coverage, we can't use the native code present in the cache file since it is not instrumented. PR #52123 introduced the capability of skipping the native code during loading, but created the issue that subsequent packages could have an explicit or implicit dependency on the native code. PR #53439 tainted the current process by setting `use_sysimage_native_code`, but this flag is propagated to subprocesses and lead to a regression in test time. Move this to a process local flag to avoid the regression. In the future we might be able to change the calling convention for cross-image calls to `invoke(ci::CodeInstance, args...)` instead of `ci.fptr(args...)` to handle native code not being present. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
This should fix the assertion failure that has been plaguing the Pkg tests, as discussed in #52123 (comment) (cherry picked from commit 6cbed31)
This should fix the assertion failure that has been plaguing the Pkg tests, as discussed in #52123 (comment) (cherry picked from commit 6cbed31)
When we use options like code coverage, we can't use the native code present in the cache file since it is not instrumented. PR #52123 introduced the capability of skipping the native code during loading, but created the issue that subsequent packages could have an explicit or implicit dependency on the native code. PR #53439 tainted the current process by setting `use_sysimage_native_code`, but this flag is propagated to subprocesses and lead to a regression in test time. Move this to a process local flag to avoid the regression. In the future we might be able to change the calling convention for cross-image calls to `invoke(ci::CodeInstance, args...)` instead of `ci.fptr(args...)` to handle native code not being present. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit b8a0a39)
…#53439) This should fix the assertion failure that has been plaguing the Pkg tests, as discussed in JuliaLang#52123 (comment)
When we use options like code coverage, we can't use the native code present in the cache file since it is not instrumented. PR JuliaLang#52123 introduced the capability of skipping the native code during loading, but created the issue that subsequent packages could have an explicit or implicit dependency on the native code. PR JuliaLang#53439 tainted the current process by setting `use_sysimage_native_code`, but this flag is propagated to subprocesses and lead to a regression in test time. Move this to a process local flag to avoid the regression. In the future we might be able to change the calling convention for cross-image calls to `invoke(ci::CodeInstance, args...)` instead of `ci.fptr(args...)` to handle native code not being present. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
…#53439) This should fix the assertion failure that has been plaguing the Pkg tests, as discussed in JuliaLang#52123 (comment)
When we use options like code coverage, we can't use the native code present in the cache file since it is not instrumented. PR JuliaLang#52123 introduced the capability of skipping the native code during loading, but created the issue that subsequent packages could have an explicit or implicit dependency on the native code. PR JuliaLang#53439 tainted the current process by setting `use_sysimage_native_code`, but this flag is propagated to subprocesses and lead to a regression in test time. Move this to a process local flag to avoid the regression. In the future we might be able to change the calling convention for cross-image calls to `invoke(ci::CodeInstance, args...)` instead of `ci.fptr(args...)` to handle native code not being present. --------- Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
- JuliaLang/julia#52123: Added the `int ignore_native` argument to jl_restore_package_image_from_file - JuliaLang/julia#49538: Added the `const char *pkgname` argument to jl_restore_package_image_from_file and jl_restore_incremental.
Fixes #48071
Fixes #51412
Alternative to #48183
This enables and defaults to using pkgimage caches for code-coverage & malloc tracking by ignoring the native code in the pkgimage, so that code must be JIT compiled, at which point the code tracking mechanism will be compiled into the native code.
This is controlled specifically at the package level, rather than globally, meaning that if the
--code-coverage=@path
approach is used (which is the default forPkg.test
), pkgimage cached native code will be used for all packages outside ofpath
, meaning faster stdlibs in CI.Benefits of this approach
--pkgimage=no
stdlib caches (faster julia builds).Based on a suggestion by @vchuravy
Waiting for:
abspath
consistent on Windows. Fix tracking path conversion. #52140