Skip to content

Commit ba12dbf

Browse files
committed
TracyProfiler: Use rr-safe nopl; rdtsc sequence
Several users have reported masssive slowdowns to rr record/replay in packages that have the tracy client loaded. The issue turns out to be an unlucky false positive in an rr heuristic that determines the patchability of `rdtsc`. In rr master, it is possible to guarantee patchability by using a specific `nopl; rdtsc` sequence. Add a patch to tracy to do just that. See also rr-debugger/rr#3580 JuliaLang/julia#50975
1 parent e8a69fe commit ba12dbf

File tree

2 files changed

+44
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+44
-0
lines changed

T/TracyProfiler/build_tarballs.jl

+1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ fi
4444
atomic_patch -p1 ../patches/TracyProfiler-nfd-extended-1.0.2.patch
4545
atomic_patch -p1 ../patches/TracyProfiler-filter-user-text.patch
4646
atomic_patch -p1 ../patches/TracyProfiler-no-divide-zero.patch
47+
atomic_patch -p1 ../patches/TracyProfiler-rr-nopl-seq.patch
4748
4849
# Build / install the profiler GUI
4950
make -e -j${nproc} -C profiler/build/unix LEGACY=1 IMAGE=tracy release
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
1+
commit 21a65e08372a37342e598422a2bd58263857807e
2+
Author: Keno Fischer <[email protected]>
3+
Date: Sat Aug 19 01:40:18 2023 +0000
4+
5+
Use patchable rdtsc sequence to avoid slowdowns under rr
6+
7+
We (Julia) ship both support for using tracy to trace julia applications,
8+
as well as using `rr` (https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr) for record-replay debugging.
9+
After our most recent rebuild of tracy, users have been reporting signfificant performance
10+
slowdowns when `rr` recording a session that happens to also load the tracy library
11+
(even if tracing is not enabled). Upon further examination, the recompile happened
12+
to trigger a protective heuristic that disabled rr's patching of tracy's use of
13+
`rdtsc` because an earlier part of the same function happened to look like a
14+
conditional branch into the patch region. See https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr/pull/3580
15+
for details. To avoid this issue occurring again in future rebuilds of tracy,
16+
adjust tracy's `rdtsc` sequence to be `nopl; rdtsc`, which (as of of the
17+
linked PR) is a sequence that is guaranteed to bypass this heuristic
18+
and not incur the additional overhead when run under rr.
19+
20+
diff --git a/public/client/TracyProfiler.hpp b/public/client/TracyProfiler.hpp
21+
index 1b825ea3..27f6bbbd 100644
22+
--- a/public/client/TracyProfiler.hpp
23+
+++ b/public/client/TracyProfiler.hpp
24+
@@ -209,7 +209,18 @@ public:
25+
if( HardwareSupportsInvariantTSC() )
26+
{
27+
uint64_t rax, rdx;
28+
- asm volatile ( "rdtsc" : "=a" (rax), "=d" (rdx) );
29+
+ // Some external tooling (such as rr) wants to patch our rdtsc and replace it by a
30+
+ // branch to control the external input seen by a program. This kind of patching is
31+
+ // not generally possible depending on the surrounding code and can lead to significant
32+
+ // slowdowns if the compiler generated unlucky code and rr and tracy are used together.
33+
+ // To avoid this, use the rr-safe `nopl 0(%rax, %rax, 1); rdtsc` instruction sequence,
34+
+ // which rr promises will be patchable independent of the surrounding code.
35+
+ asm volatile (
36+
+ // This is nopl 0(%rax, %rax, 1), but assemblers are inconsistent about whether
37+
+ // they emit that as a 4 or 5 byte sequence and we need to be guaranteed to use
38+
+ // the 5 byte one.
39+
+ ".byte 0x01, 0x1f, 0x44, 0x00, 0x00\n\t"
40+
+ "rdtsc" : "=a" (rax), "=d" (rdx) );
41+
return (int64_t)(( rdx << 32 ) + rax);
42+
}
43+
# else

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)