JIT: Extend escape analysis to account for arrays with non-gcref elements

[hez2010]

Positive case:

var chs = new char[42];
chs[1] = 'a';
Console.WriteLine((int)chs[1] + chs.Length);

Codegen:

; Assembly listing for method ArrayAllocator.Program:Main() (FullOpts)
; Emitting BLENDED_CODE for X64 with AVX - Windows
; FullOpts code
; optimized code
; rsp based frame
; partially interruptible
; No PGO data
; Final local variable assignments
;
;* V00 loc0         [V00    ] (  0,  0   )    long  ->  zero-ref    class-hnd exact <short[]>
;  V01 OutArgs      [V01    ] (  1,  1   )  struct (32) [rsp+0x00]  do-not-enreg[XS] addr-exposed "OutgoingArgSpace"
;* V02 tmp1         [V02    ] (  0,  0   )  struct (104) zero-ref    do-not-enreg[SF] "stack allocated array temp"
;* V03 tmp2         [V03    ] (  0,  0   )    long  ->  zero-ref    single-def "V02.[000..008)"
;* V04 tmp3         [V04    ] (  0,  0   )     int  ->  zero-ref    single-def "V02.[008..012)"
;* V05 tmp4         [V05    ] (  0,  0   )   short  ->  zero-ref    "V02.[018..020)"
;
; Lcl frame size = 40

G_M25548_IG01:  ;; offset=0x0000
       sub      rsp, 40
                                                ;; size=4 bbWeight=1 PerfScore 0.25
G_M25548_IG02:  ;; offset=0x0004
       mov      ecx, 84
       call     [System.Console:WriteLine(int)]
       nop
                                                ;; size=12 bbWeight=1 PerfScore 3.50
G_M25548_IG03:  ;; offset=0x0010
       add      rsp, 40
       ret
                                                ;; size=5 bbWeight=1 PerfScore 1.25

; Total bytes of code 21, prolog size 4, PerfScore 5.00, instruction count 6, allocated bytes for code 21 (MethodHash=5b0b9c33) for method ArrayAllocator.Program:Main() (FullOpts)

Negative case:

var chs = new char[42];
chs[1] = 'a';
Console.WriteLine((int)chs[42] + chs.Length);

Codegen:

; Assembly listing for method ArrayAllocator.Program:Main() (FullOpts)
; Emitting BLENDED_CODE for X64 with AVX - Windows
; FullOpts code
; optimized code
; rsp based frame
; partially interruptible
; No PGO data
; Final local variable assignments
;
;* V00 loc0         [V00    ] (  0,  0   )    long  ->  zero-ref    class-hnd exact <short[]>
;  V01 OutArgs      [V01    ] (  1,  1   )  struct (32) [rsp+0x00]  do-not-enreg[XS] addr-exposed "OutgoingArgSpace"
;* V02 tmp1         [V02    ] (  0,  0   )  struct (104) zero-ref    do-not-enreg[SF] "stack allocated array temp"
;  V03 tmp2         [V03,T00] (  1,  0   )   byref  ->  rbx         must-init "dummy temp of must thrown exception"
;* V04 tmp3         [V04    ] (  0,  0   )    long  ->  zero-ref    single-def "V02.[000..008)"
;* V05 tmp4         [V05    ] (  0,  0   )     int  ->  zero-ref    single-def "V02.[008..012)"
;* V06 tmp5         [V06    ] (  0,  0   )   short  ->  zero-ref    single-def "V02.[018..020)"
;
; Lcl frame size = 32

G_M25548_IG01:  ;; offset=0x0000
       push     rbx
       sub      rsp, 32
       xor      ebx, ebx
                                                ;; size=7 bbWeight=0 PerfScore 0.00
G_M25548_IG02:  ;; offset=0x0007
       call     CORINFO_HELP_RNGCHKFAIL
       movsx    rcx, word  ptr [rbx]
       call     [System.Console:WriteLine(int)]
       int3
                                                ;; size=16 bbWeight=0 PerfScore 0.00

; Total bytes of code 23, prolog size 5, PerfScore 0.00, instruction count 7, allocated bytes for code 23 (MethodHash=5b0b9c33) for method ArrayAllocator.Program:Main() (FullOpts)
; ============================================================

Benchmark on Mandelbrot:

Method	Job	Mean	Error	StdDev	Code Size	Allocated
MandelBrot	NoStackAllocationArray	199.7 us	1.30 us	1.22 us	1,996 B	2.49 KB
MandelBrot	StackAllocationArray	195.8 us	1.16 us	1.08 us	2,414 B	1.14 KB

Diff: https://www.diffchecker.com/bNP4qHdF/

[dotnet-policy-service]

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

[AndyAyersMS]

For arrays (and also perhaps boxes and ref classes) we ought to have some kind of size limit... possibly similar to the one we use for stackallocs.

We need to be careful we don't allocate a lot of stack for an object that might not be heavily used, as we'll pay per-call prolog zeroing costs.

[hez2010]

Did you put up a PR for the field-wise analysis anywhere? That may be one of the key missing pieces.

It's on my branch. Will open a draft PR soon to validate CI and see how much benefits we can gain from the field-wise analysis.

[hez2010]

Tests (modulus unrelated) are passing.
PTAL @jakobbotsch

name	arrays (%)	arrays with field-wise analysis (%)
benchmarks.run.windows.x64.checked	14/4163 (0.34%)	14/4084 (0.34%)
benchmarks.run_pgo.windows.x64.checked	25/1562 (1.60%)	36/1550 (2.32%)
benchmarks.run_tiered.windows.x64.checked	14/378 (3.70%)	10/368 (2.72%)
coreclr_tests.run.windows.x64.checked	162/60525 (0.27%)	183/60271 (0.30%)
libraries.crossgen2.windows.x64.checked	13/11330 (0.11%)	48/11300 (0.42%)
libraries.pmi.windows.x64.checked	16/14840 (0.11%)	325/14577 (2.23%)
libraries_tests.run.windows.x64.Release	79/16584 (0.48%)	124/16167 (0.77%)
libraries_tests_no_tiered_compilation.run.windows.x64.Release	325/109551 (0.30%)	1340/108652 (1.23%)
realworld.run.windows.x64.checked	1/3438 (0.03%)	3/3331 (0.09%)
smoke_tests.nativeaot.windows.x64.checked	0/857 (0.00%)	2/855 (0.23%)

with field-wise analysis we are missing context for more methods, so it's possible that spmi reports worse stats.

[hez2010]

I collected the method context against BCL by myself to prevent missing method context.

name	ref-classes (%)	boxes (%)	arrays (%)
w/o field-wise	177/49224 (0.36%)	380/7015 (5.42%)	19/5195 (0.37%)
with field-wise	407/55667 (0.73%)	375/7031 (5.33%)	38/5823 (0.65%)

[hez2010]

I don't see us taking this for .NET 9 but perhaps we can soon thereafter. I will take a closer look next week sometime.

The stats above are not all that encouraging. I think for both arrays and ref classes we likely need to take a more holistic look at what is blocking us from finding more cases (or if indeed, if there are not more cases to be had). Eugene did this sort of thing when the initial support was implemented and found similarly less-than-encouraging results (which is why we never enabled it), but it is worth taking a fresh look.

It's actually a small change as it relies on the existing analysis and added the treatment to arrays as well, which is a "free" improvement. I personally would like to see it goes to .NET 9.

[JulieLeeMSFT]

This is optimization, not correctness issue. We don't have time to work on this for .NET 9, so we will review it in .NET 10.

[JulieLeeMSFT]

@AndyAyersMS please review this community PR.

[AndyAyersMS]

Some questions along with the particular notes:

• do you see diffs with these changes when DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocationArray=0?
• are stack allocated arrays amenable to physical promotion? If not, why not?
• what does codegen look like for a locally allocated array consumed by a loop? Is it at least as good as the heap case?
• we need a tighter size limit, 8192 is too high. We likely need one both for individual allocations (especially if conditional) and for the overall amount of stack size increase. For individual allocations we should either match the stackalloc -> local size limit or gather data suggesting why a different choice is the right one. For the overall limit I'm less sure, but something around 8192 for all stack allocated locals seems about right.
• given that, we might need a prioritization scheme, if we have so many allocation opportunities that some get left out. But I expect this will be rare.

[AndyAyersMS]

Do we really need to handle the out of bounds cases here?

[hez2010]

IIRC not handing it will make the negative case address exposed, while inserting a BOUND_CHECK node will lead to an assert in later phase.

[AndyAyersMS]

As I noted over in #107542 we don't want to have control flow logic conditional on DEBUG like this... we need to find a better fix.

[hez2010]

I'm reverting changes to this and instead wait for #107542 to be fixed first.

[hez2010]

• do you see diffs with these changes when DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocationArray=0?

I will test it and post the result later.

• are stack allocated arrays amenable to physical promotion? If not, why not?

I think yes?

int[] a = new[] { 1,2,3,4 };
return a[2];

will produce the following codegen:

mov rax, 3
ret

• what does codegen look like for a locally allocated array consumed by a loop? Is it at least as good as the heap case?

We need #102965 to get better codegen for this case. Otherwise it gets address exposed.

• we need a tighter size limit, 8192 is too high. We likely need one both for individual allocations (especially if conditional) and for the overall amount of stack size increase. For individual allocations we should either match the stackalloc -> local size limit or gather data suggesting why a different choice is the right one. For the overall limit I'm less sure, but something around 8192 for all stack allocated locals seems about right.

Agree. I think we can do this in a following PR?

[hez2010]

do you see diffs with these changes when DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocationArray=0?

Just checked superpmi and there's no stack allocated array when DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocationArray=0.

[hez2010]

Test failures are #107542. I'm going to leave it as is.