Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#70697 - [clang] Build with -fno-semantic-interposition and -Bsymbolic-function

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Ray Song (MaskRay) - Monday, 03 May 2021, 19:13 GMT
Last edited by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Sunday, 06 June 2021, 18:36 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

[re-posted to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956484 ; I am an Arch Linux user :)]

As I mentioned on "Re: Very slow clang kernel config .." (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210501235549.vugtjeb7dmd5xell@google.com/),
the llvm and clang builds can use -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions to improve performance.
The performance of the built clang will be comparable to a mostly statically linked (libLLVM*.a libclang*.a) PIE clang, as evidenced by my few runs building x86_64 defconfig 'vmlinux' (-j 40):

# the compile flags may be very different from the clang builds below.
system gcc; LLVM=
1050.15s user 192.96s system 3015% cpu 41.219 total
1055.47s user 196.51s system 3022% cpu 41.424 total

clang (libLLVM*.a libclang*.a); LLVM=1
1588.35s user 193.02s system 3223% cpu 55.259 total
1613.59s user 193.22s system 3234% cpu 55.861 total
clang (libLLVM.so libclang-cpp.so); LLVM=1
1870.07s user 222.86s system 3256% cpu 1:04.26 total
1863.26s user 220.59s system 3219% cpu 1:04.73 total
1877.79s user 223.98s system 3233% cpu 1:05.00 total
1859.32s user 221.96s system 3241% cpu 1:04.20 total
clang (libLLVM.so libclang-cpp.so -fno-semantic-interposition); LLVM=1
1810.47s user 222.98s system 3288% cpu 1:01.83 total
1790.46s user 219.65s system 3227% cpu 1:02.27 total
1796.46s user 220.88s system 3139% cpu 1:04.25 total
1796.55s user 221.28s system 3215% cpu 1:02.75 total
clang (libLLVM.so libclang-cpp.so -fno-semantic-interposition -Wl,-Bsymbolic); LLVM=1
1608.75s user 221.39s system 3192% cpu 57.333 total
1607.85s user 220.60s system 3205% cpu 57.042 total
1598.64s user 191.21s system 3208% cpu 55.778 total
clang (libLLVM.so libclang-cpp.so -fno-semantic-interposition -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions); LLVM=1
1617.35s user 220.54s system 3217% cpu 57.115 total


-fno-semantic-interposition can avoid some GOT (on x86-64 the optimization is partially covered by R_X86_64_{REX_,}GOTPCRELX)
(in clang, access to external linkage default visibility non-comdat definition in the same translation unit).
As of gcc 11 and clang 12, this option is a no-op on non-x86, but compilers may improve for other architectures in the future.


-Bsymbolic is less safe because it can break interaction with copy relocations (https://maskray.me/blog/2021-01-09-copy-relocations-canonical-plt-entries-and-protected).
This task depends upon

Closed by  Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis)
Sunday, 06 June 2021, 18:36 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  llvm 12.0.0-1 / clang 12.0.0-1
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Wednesday, 05 May 2021, 16:10 GMT
Could you measure impact of using "-DLLVM_ENABLE_LTO=Thin" as well?
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 11:17 GMT
Disclaimer: I'm not an Arch maintainer

Fwiw my personal inclination is to drop the shared clang/LLVM libraries and static link as the only option.
A number of projects using LLVM explicitly allow only static link, due to the unstable C++ API et al.

Using static has the best performance, as seen with the numbers above - at the expense of:
- increased disk usage
Can be mitigated by building with LTO - eg. currently we package mesa with and shared LLVM. Plus I believe LTO is becoming the default for all packages.

- distribution (rebuild) annoyances
Seemingly a non-issue on Arch - most (all?) packages using shared LLVM are rebuild, even for bugfix LLVM releases.
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 11:28 GMT
Bonus points:
Using static clang/llvm should reduce the llvm vs llvm10 vs llvm9 etc annoyances.

For example: `crystal` package is the only one using llvm10 and llvm10-libs.
With this example, the disk usage factor even goes in the opposite direction - the total usage is greater as-is, than if static llvm was used.
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 12:01 GMT
@xexaxo originally I had the same idea about static linking but then I realised how significant is the size increase (several hundred %). LTO isn't mitigation for this as it actually increases the size too (the benefit of LTO is perf enhancement). It would be nice if someone tested all of this in Arch environment to see perf vs size impact ratio.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 13:30 GMT
xexaxo, the point of shared linking isn't just about the space used. It isn't even mostly about that. But even so, llvm is really bad to statically link into *that many* separate executables.

And no, static linking won't reduce "the llvm/llvm10/llvm9 annoyances" since the shared libraries are the only parts that don't conflict so developers would still be able to only have one installed and simple users don't have any of them installed both before and after this ticket.

I'm not sure what the unstable C++ ABI has to do with this as a distribution.

Crystal is not the only package using llvm10 I bet, not if you look at the AUR too. And just because it is the only one in the repos today, does not mean it will be the only one in the future.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 13:36 GMT
I have vague memories that when python switched in the upstream makefiles to build with -fno-semantic-interposition they had some concern that it would prevent people from doing LD_PRELOAD introspection, but decided the risks are small and the gains are huge when doing lots of intra-library function calls. I'd be hesitant to do this sort of thing by default distro-wide (at the very least it seems exceedingly unwise to do for glibc...) but llvm seems like a safe place to do it too.

Maybe upstream should add this as the default? Has anyone tried discussing it with the llvm development list?
Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 17:17 GMT
The only _vaguely_ related numbers I have are ancient - from  FS#52021 : reducing supported targets (13->4), results in llvm-libs 47.4MiB -> 31.7MiB, llvm 132.6MiB -> 95.1MiB

Casual skim through the packages depending on `llvm-libs` shows 25 unique entries, split into two categories - GL/Vulkan/compute drivers and compilers.
Both of these are targets, where personally I would value speed over size.

eschwartz - sounds like I've missed the point, if space and rebuilds aren't the main issues. Any tips/pointers would be appreciated.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 18:30 GMT
The space argument is the traditional one raised in order to be debunked by people who dislike shared libraries. The (reasonable) point made is that disk space is cheap and getting cheaper.

What isn't getting cheaper is network bandwidth, where the benefits of a shared framework downloaded once, are very helpful. Furthermore, this particular concern is NOT mitigated by "oh, the package is only used once, if you link it in statically it gets smaller" because, when you count download size, what matters is the combination of every repeated redownload, summed up. Downloading a (random numbers) 30mb package once and a 20mb package 3 times makes for 90mb. If you assume that static linking leaves you with one 40mb package (10mb or 33% savings), 3 downloads is 120mb. Actual numbers will differ greatly, but overall you'll tend to lose.

Note that every update to llvm static requires rebuilding everything that links to it in order to have the update take effect, so you also rebuild more often. In comparison, with dynamic linking you rebuild the applications whenever you normally do, but only rebuild it against the framework when the framework changes ABI/soname. (I do not know why llvm in particular might be having full ecosystem rebuilds on, what, patch releases of llvm? Backported one-liner regression fixes? I am not sure I even believe you.)


On rebuilds:
Static linking makes rebuilds more complex, not less:
- we need to rebuild more often, every time a framework is rebuilt we rebuild the ecosystem to statically link new code, vs. dynamically sharing improvements
- we use tools like sogrep or https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/crystal/sonames/ to determine what programs link to which library packages and need to be rebuilt on version updates, but we cannot track this for static linkage


On security:
For security updates to a library, enter full on panic mode where every statically linked program is also potentially vulnerable in addition to the library itself, and must be urgently rebuilt just in case, and listed as vulnerable-but-fixed-in-version-X in security bulletins. Figuring out which packages this is, is left as an exercise to the reader^W^W^W^W^W^W haha lolnope abandon hope all ye distro devs and despair. (Okay, given that llvm *specifically* is typically used by leaf packages you can probably just blindly rebuild everything on the invisible list of reverse makedepends, which is shown on archweb but not by pacman -Sii.)

In general -- no, there are in fact good reasons for dynamically linking @world and any exceptions had better be darned good ones, not just "it's the same as -fno-semantic-interposition -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions but nebulous benefits and tradeoffs for size depending on how many other packages use it". It should generally be a last resort.
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 19:14 GMT
I think current discussion is conflating static linking of clang/llvm with static linking of packages that use clang/llvm while those two things are orthogonal to each other. By static linking of clang/llvm I mean whether they should link to libclang/libLLVM statically. Specifically this is about LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB and CLANG_LINK_CLANG_DYLIB build options.

If we talk about compiler performance (which is what this bugreport is about) then static vs dynamic linking of clang/llvm itself is what matters and whether it makes sense to statically link something that depends on clang/llvm is matter for different discussion.

Comment by Emil (xexaxo) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 19:55 GMT
Above all - thanks for the details Eli and apologies if my input might seem off topic.

Completely missed the network bandwidth side of things, thanks.

As mentioned before - currently packages using the shared library get rebuild, even when the SONAME is unchanged.
Implicitly handling the security argument.

I believe the "Required By" list for llvm-libs and llvm, is of some indication about the current state of affairs - shared vs static.
And yes, the actual numbers are closer to 25 vs 60, as opposed to the 30 vs 113 in the archweb.

Fwiw do I share the sentiments (dependency tracking, rebuilds, security, bandwidth) but I think llvm fits in the exception category, since currently:
- a number of projects explicitly (or solely) support static llvm
- it brings notable performance gains for IMHO critical components - compilers, GL/Vulkan/Compute drivers
- all packages that use it (shared or static) are essentially rebuild
- all packages that use it are essentially leaf

Hope maintainers see merit in my arguments. Either way, I'll stop drawing attention :-)
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 20:08 GMT
Most recent llvm updates:

upgpkg: llvm 11.1.0-1: new upstream release (Feb. 17)
upgpkg: llvm 11.0.1-2: fix shader compilation in blender (Feb. 02)

blender did not get rebuilt at this time :p it did get rebuilt 2 weeks later for cuda though, and the day after the llvm minor release blender got rebuilt for openimagedenoise.

So anecdotally, but without actual analysis, llvm updates do NOT result in dynamically linked reverse dependencies being rebuilt. Not even clang, seemingly, except inasmuch as both llvm/clang seem to get new tagged versions at the same time (clang didn't get rebuilt for the blender-specific patch with updated pkgrel).

...

Anyway, clang is one user of llvm, and I don't see particular justification for statically linking this one user if the LDFLAGS changes suffice to help clang performance.
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Thursday, 06 May 2021, 20:44 GMT
Static linking is not even a remote consideration so it would be best to refrain from further discussing it here. Dynamic libraries provide a single point to apply bug fixes, help discover consumers of said libraries as well as assist in keeping track of rebuilds.

As for the ticket at hand: @MaskRay, thank you for the suggestions; would it be possible to bring them to upstream's attention? While they do seem safe, I would feel more comfortable to incorporate them after upstream has approved of them and hopefully integrated them into their CMake build config.
Comment by Ray Song (MaskRay) - Friday, 07 May 2021, 20:35 GMT
I have posted an upstream patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D102090 and started a llvm-dev thread https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150465.html

Note to LD_PRELOAD: -fno-semantic-interposition is more tricky in clang. It generally doesn't work as you might expect. Clang's longstanding behavior enables interprocedural optimizations (including inlining) on such default visibility external linkage definitions in the same translation unit. My patch has more context on this.

-fno-semantic-interposition + -Bsymbolic-functions: the performance is comparable with libLLVM*.a libclang*.a .
Shared objects aren't that bad.
Comment by Ray Song (MaskRay) - Wednesday, 12 May 2021, 21:11 GMT
I have pushed https://reviews.llvm.org/D102090 today which adds the two flags.
This task can be closed.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 12 May 2021, 21:16 GMT
Given that LLVM/clang now default to this upstream, we now have high confidence this behavior change is acceptable and reasonable. Thanks for the heads up, and for pushing for this!

As such, there's no need to wait for a new stable release upstream. We can add the options locally as a non-trivial performance benefit to users today.

foutrelis, over to you. :D
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Wednesday, 12 May 2021, 21:29 GMT
Agreed, it's definitely something to consider for our LLVM 12 packages (soon-ish...)

@MaskRay: Thanks for implementing this upstream. 🐈
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Saturday, 05 June 2021, 03:48 GMT
LLVM 12 in testing includes both -fno-semantic-interposition and -Bsymbolic-function (the latter only for libLLVM and libclang-cpp). 🥳🎉

@MaskRay: Thanks again for getting these changes upstream.

Loading...