Personally I'd really like a way to let the backend not cache TLS addresses in GCC and LLVM. I don't think this is specific to Go. In C, if you use getcontext/setcontext with TLS variables, this problem can also happen. But I guess getcontext/setcontext are not used very common. As you said, this probably won't happen soon.

Follow the practice of main go, reserve a register to store g.

I thought about that. The tricky thing is that the libgo runtime uses C for many things, including external C code, libbacktrace, libffi, libgcc, and syscall wrappers from libc. If we reserve a register globally, all these C code need to be compiled in a special way. Or we have to have some wrapper that save/restore the reserved register at C library boundaries.

Store g in a suitable location on the stack.

I'm not sure how this is going to work. Also, the C code seems to need special compilation.

Maybe a possibility is with the current approach, and add a machine-IR pass, runs after CSE, that inlines getg calls back in. This will be machine dependent. And I'm not sure if this can be done for gccgo.

Hi Cherry, I also thought about many possible solutions, including:

1. callee saved register. This is actually the current main go approach. We need to deal with many special cases (tsan, msan, vdso, etc.). As you said in gollvm we may also need special compilation for a lot of c code. This method is too cumbersome.
2. free system register. No such register is currently found.
3. somewhere on the stack. This method requires some very ugly restrictions on the goroutine's stack. For example, put g at the bottom of the stack and require the stack to be aligned with 2m bytes, and the size of the stack cannot exceed 2m. Then we can calculate the position of g from the value of sp. I think this is just an option, and we know this method is very ugly.
4. tls. This method needs to deal with the caching of the tls base address by CSE optimization. At present, this method is the most feasible approach. On linux/amd64 we wrote a pass to disable the CSE optimization. But maybe we can disable this optimization in a simpler way, that is inline assembly.

Here is an example on Linux/arm64:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

__thread long long g = 1;
void schedule_this_routine_to_a_different_thread() {
  printf("schedule_this_routine_to_a_different_thread\n");
}

// The following getg simulates the getg in gollvm
long long getg() {
  return g;
}

// getg_new is implemented with inline assembly
long long getg_new() {
  long long out;
   asm volatile(
     "mrs %[out], tpidr_el0 \t\n\
      add %[out], %[out], #:tprel_hi12:g, lsl #12 \t\n\
      add %[out], %[out], #:tprel_lo12_nc:g \t\n\
      ldr %[out], [%[out]] \t\n\
     " : [out] "=r" (out)
   );
  return out;
}

long long test_getg() {
  long long v1, v2;
  v1 = getg();
  schedule_this_routine_to_a_different_thread();
  v2 = getg();
  return v1 + v2;
}

long long test_getg_new() {
  long long v1, v2;
  v1 = getg_new();
  schedule_this_routine_to_a_different_thread();
  v2 = getg_new();
  return v1 + v2;
}

int main() {
  int res = 0;
  res += test_getg();
  res += test_getg_new();
  return res;
}

compile the above getg.c file with "clang -O2 -o getg getg.c".

The objdump result:

    00000000004005f0 <test_getg>:
  4005f0:       a9be4ff4        stp     x20, x19, [sp, #-32]!
  4005f4:       a9017bfd        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #16]
  4005f8:       d53bd048        mrs     x8, tpidr_el0
  4005fc:       91400108        add     x8, x8, #0x0, lsl #12
  400600:       91004113        add     x19, x8, #0x10
  400604:       f9400274        ldr     x20, [x19]
  400608:       90000000        adrp    x0, 400000 <g+0x400000>
  40060c:       911e8000        add     x0, x0, #0x7a0
  400610:       910043fd        add     x29, sp, #0x10
  400614:       97ffffa3        bl      4004a0 <puts@plt>
  400618:       f9400268        ldr     x8, [x19]
  40061c:       a9417bfd        ldp     x29, x30, [sp, #16]
  400620:       8b140100        add     x0, x8, x20
  400624:       a8c24ff4        ldp     x20, x19, [sp], #32
  400628:       d65f03c0        ret

  000000000040062c <test_getg_new>:
  40062c:       f81e0ff3        str     x19, [sp, #-32]!
  400630:       90000000        adrp    x0, 400000 <g+0x400000>
  400634:       911e8000        add     x0, x0, #0x7a0
  400638:       a9017bfd        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #16]
  40063c:       910043fd        add     x29, sp, #0x10
  400640:       d53bd053        mrs     x19, tpidr_el0
  400644:       91400273        add     x19, x19, #0x0, lsl #12
  400648:       91004273        add     x19, x19, #0x10
  40064c:       f9400273        ldr     x19, [x19]
  400650:       97ffff94        bl      4004a0 <puts@plt>
  400654:       d53bd048        mrs     x8, tpidr_el0
  400658:       91400108        add     x8, x8, #0x0, lsl #12
  40065c:       91004108        add     x8, x8, #0x10
  400660:       f9400108        ldr     x8, [x8]
  400664:       a9417bfd        ldp     x29, x30, [sp, #16]
  400668:       8b130100        add     x0, x8, x19
  40066c:       f84207f3        ldr     x19, [sp], #32
  400670:       d65f03c0        ret

As you can see, getg_new is inlined, which also avoids the optimization problem of CSE. Then we don't need the GoSafeGetg pass any more. I'm not familiar with x86 assembly, so I didn't write a x86 example, but I think This approach applies to other architectures.
Of course, this method is not perfect. If there is no thread switch between multiple getg calls, this will cause some unnecessary instructions to be executed. But I think this performance loss is very small, and it is rare for a function to call getg a lot.
What you think of this method? If you feel ok I am willing to send a patch to fix this problem.

Inline assembly may not apply to dynamic linking 😢

Change https://golang.org/cl/228737 mentions this issue: gollvm: implement getg function with inline assembly for arm64