Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' #76879

BruceForstall · 2022-10-11T15:04:37Z

osx-arm64 random JitStress

Test: JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh

https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=47392&view=ms.vss-test-web.build-test-results-tab&runId=953920&resultId=103768&paneView=debug

export COMPlus_TieredCompilation=0
export COMPlus_JitStress=35a

    JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh [FAIL]
      
      Assert failure(PID 12800 [0x00003200], Thread: 8914595 [0x8806a3]): Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' in 'JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.General.VectorExtend__ToVector256UInt64:RunReflectionScenario():this' during 'Generate code' (IL size 233; hash 0x76b37d97; FullOpts)
      
          File: /Users/runner/work/1/s/src/coreclr/jit/codegenarmarch.cpp Line: 3085
          Image: /private/tmp/helix/working/B5B60A2F/p/corerun
      
      [createdump] Invalid process id: task_for_pid(12800) FAILED (os/kern) failure (5)
      [createdump] This failure may be because createdump or the application is not properly signed and entitled.
      [createdump] Failure took 0ms
      [createdump] waitpid() returned successfully (wstatus 0000ff00)
      /private/tmp/helix/working/B5B60A2F/w/A9B00977/e/JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh: line 396: 12800 Abort trap: 6           (core dumped) $LAUNCHER $ExePath "${CLRTestExecutionArguments[@]}"
      
      Return code:      1

@dotnet/jit-contrib

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

ghost · 2022-10-11T15:04:48Z

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

Issue Details

osx-arm64 random JitStress

Test: JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh

https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=47392&view=ms.vss-test-web.build-test-results-tab&runId=953920&resultId=103768&paneView=debug

export COMPlus_TieredCompilation=0
export COMPlus_JitStress=35a

    JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh [FAIL]
      
      Assert failure(PID 12800 [0x00003200], Thread: 8914595 [0x8806a3]): Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' in 'JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.General.VectorExtend__ToVector256UInt64:RunReflectionScenario():this' during 'Generate code' (IL size 233; hash 0x76b37d97; FullOpts)
      
          File: /Users/runner/work/1/s/src/coreclr/jit/codegenarmarch.cpp Line: 3085
          Image: /private/tmp/helix/working/B5B60A2F/p/corerun
      
      [createdump] Invalid process id: task_for_pid(12800) FAILED (os/kern) failure (5)
      [createdump] This failure may be because createdump or the application is not properly signed and entitled.
      [createdump] Failure took 0ms
      [createdump] waitpid() returned successfully (wstatus 0000ff00)
      /private/tmp/helix/working/B5B60A2F/w/A9B00977/e/JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/General/Vector128_1/Vector128_1_ro/Vector128_1_ro.sh: line 396: 12800 Abort trap: 6           (core dumped) $LAUNCHER $ExePath "${CLRTestExecutionArguments[@]}"
      
      Return code:      1

@dotnet/jit-contrib

Author:	BruceForstall
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`JitStress`, `area-CodeGen-coreclr`
Milestone:	8.0.0

kunalspathak · 2022-10-11T15:05:59Z

Related to #76671? @jakobbotsch ?

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T15:14:28Z

Unlikely since that PR shouldn't affect the IR (well, I suppose it could via resolutions/spills/reloads). I can take a look though.

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T15:36:05Z

I suppose it could via resolutions/spills/reloads

...and that's exactly what happens, looks like LSRA is inserting a reload between a PUTARG_REG and its parent FIELD_LIST:

N585 (  1,  1) [000182] -----------                  t182 =    LCL_VAR   ref    V23 tmp17        u:2 x25 REG x25 $245
                                                            ┌──▌  t182   ref    
N587 (  3,  4) [000189] -c---------                  t189 = ▌  LEA(b+8)  byref  REG NA
                                                            ┌──▌  t189   byref  
N589 (  4,  3) [000403] n---GO-----                  t403 = ▌  IND       simd16 REG d0 <l:$547, c:$546>
                                                            ┌──▌  t403   simd16 
N591 (???,???) [000612] ----GO----Z                  t612 = ▌  PUTARG_REG simd16 REG d0
                                                            ┌──▌  t612   simd16 
               [000627] ----GO-----                  t627 = ▌  RELOAD    simd16 REG d0
N593 (  1,  1) [000405] -----------                  t405 =    LCL_VAR   ref    V23 tmp17        u:2 x25 (last use) REG x25 $245
                                                            ┌──▌  t405   ref    
N595 (  3,  4) [000404] -c---------                  t404 = ▌  LEA(b+24) byref  REG NA
                                                            ┌──▌  t404   byref  
N597 (  4,  3) [000409] ---XG------                  t409 = ▌  IND       simd16 REG d1 <l:$549, c:$548>
                                                            ┌──▌  t409   simd16 
N599 (???,???) [000613] ---XG-----Z                  t613 = ▌  PUTARG_REG simd16 REG d1
                                                            ┌──▌  t613   simd16 
               [000628] ---XG------                  t628 = ▌  RELOAD    simd16 REG d1         <- illegal reload position?
                                                            ┌──▌  t627   simd16 
                                                            ├──▌  t628   simd16 
N601 (  8,  6) [000402] -c-XGO-----                  t402 = ▌  FIELD_LIST struct REG NA <l:$683, c:$682>
N603 (  1,  1) [000176] -----------                  t176 =    LCL_VAR   ref    V00 this         u:1 x19 (last use) REG x19 $80
N605 (???,???) [000620] -----------                            PROF_HOOK void   REG NA
                                                            ┌──▌  t176   ref    
N607 (???,???) [000614] -----------                  t614 = ▌  PUTARG_REG ref    REG x0
N609 (  1,  1) [000191] -----------                  t191 =    LCL_VAR   ref    V01 loc0         u:2 x22 (last use) REG x22 $240
                                                            ┌──▌  t191   ref    
N611 (???,???) [000615] -----------                  t615 = ▌  PUTARG_REG ref    REG x1
N613 (  1,  2) [000260] -----------                  t260 =    CNS_INT   int    1 REG x2 $45
                                                            ┌──▌  t260   int    
N615 (???,???) [000616] -----------                  t616 = ▌  PUTARG_REG int    REG x2
N617 (  1,  1) [000504] -----------                  t504 =    LCL_VAR   ref    V29 cse3         u:1 x20 (last use) REG x20 $201
                                                            ┌──▌  t504   ref    
N619 (???,???) [000617] -----------                  t617 = ▌  PUTARG_REG ref    REG x3
N621 (  3, 12) [000618] H----------                  t618 =    CNS_INT(h) long   0x7ff7b9317f60 ftn REG x4
                                                            ┌──▌  t618   long   
N623 (  6, 14) [000619] -----------                  t619 = ▌  IND       long   REG x4
                                                            ┌──▌  t402   struct arg1 d0,d1
                                                            ├──▌  t614   ref    this in x0
                                                            ├──▌  t615   ref    arg2 in x1
                                                            ├──▌  t616   int    arg3 in x2
                                                            ├──▌  t617   ref    arg4 in x3
                                                            ├──▌  t619   long   control expr
N625 ( 26, 18) [000194] --CXGO-----                         ▌  CALL      void   JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.General.VectorExtend__ToVector256UInt64.ValidateResult REG NA $VN.Void

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T15:47:37Z

Actually, lowering does allow reloads between the call and PUTARG_REG, so I guess it is the FIELD_LIST handling that is in the wrong.

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T15:59:07Z

The existing handling in lowering seems wrong to me. genCall just skips copies/reloads which means we never reload those values if we see them in that position. I'm not totally sure how this is supposed to work @BruceForstall @kunalspathak? My understanding is that genConsumeReg has to be called on these copies/reloads to be handled properly.

It does not make much sense to me that we can have them on top of the PUTARG node, but I don't have the LSRA knowledge to understand why ends up there.

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T16:05:05Z

This repros with #76671 reverted as well, so it doesn't seem related after all.

jakobbotsch · 2022-10-11T16:11:54Z

I think the actual problem is in the insertion of PROF_HOOK. It turns into a call, so it is nonsensical to insert it after PUTARG_REG. InsertProfTailCallHook is missing handling for FIELD_LIST.

This logic was not handling FIELD_LIST and was also not handling linear order appropriately. The logic is still a bit odd, it would probably be better to use the same kind of logic as CFG (moving PUTARG nodes ahead of the profiler hook instead), but in practice this seems to be ok. Fix dotnet#76879

This logic was not handling FIELD_LIST and was also not handling linear order appropriately. The logic is still a bit odd, it would probably be better to use the same kind of logic as CFG (moving PUTARG nodes ahead of the profiler hook instead), but in practice this seems to be ok. Fix #76879

BruceForstall added JitStress CLR JIT issues involving JIT internal stress modes area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI labels Oct 11, 2022

BruceForstall added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Oct 11, 2022

BruceForstall added the blocking-clean-ci-optional Blocking optional rolling runs label Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch self-assigned this Oct 11, 2022

runfoapp bot mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2022

Infrastructure - Status/Health #702

Closed

jakobbotsch mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2022

JIT: Fix profiler tail call insertion logic for FIELD_LIST #76883

Merged

ghost added the in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged label Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch closed this as completed in #76883 Oct 13, 2022

ghost removed the in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged label Oct 13, 2022

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 12, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' #76879

Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' #76879

BruceForstall commented Oct 11, 2022

ghost commented Oct 11, 2022

kunalspathak commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' #76879

Assertion failed 'putArgRegNode->gtOper == GT_PUTARG_REG' #76879

Comments

BruceForstall commented Oct 11, 2022

ghost commented Oct 11, 2022

kunalspathak commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 • edited Loading

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 • edited Loading

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jakobbotsch commented Oct 11, 2022 •

edited

Loading