skip to main content
research-article

The study and handling of program inputs in the selection of garbage collectors

Published:31 July 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many studies have shown that the best performer among a set of garbage collectors tends to be different for different applications. Researchers have proposed applicationspecific selection of garbage collectors. In this work, we concentrate on a second dimension of the problem: the influence of program inputs on the selection of garbage collectors. We collect tens to hundreds of inputs for a set of Java benchmarks, and measure their performance on Jikes RVM with different heap sizes and garbage collectors. A rigorous statistical analysis produces four-fold insights. First, inputs influence the relative performance of garbage collectors significantly, causing large variations to the top set of garbage collectors across inputs. Profiling one or few runs is thus inadequate for selecting the garbage collector that works well for most inputs. Second, when the heap size ratio is fixed, one or two types of garbage collectors are enough to stimulate the top performance of the program on all inputs. Third, for some programs, the heap size ratio significantly affects the relative performance of different types of garbage collectors. For the selection of garbage collectors on those programs, it is necessary to have a cross-input predictive model that predicts the minimum possible heap size of the execution on an arbitrary input. Finally, by adoptingstatistical learning techniques, we investigate the cross-input predictability of the influence. Experimental results demonstrate that with regression and classification techniques, it is possible to predict the best garbage collector (along with the minimum possible heap size) with reasonable accuracy given an arbitrary input to an application. The exploration opens the opportunities for tailoring the selection of garbage collectors to not only applications but also their inputs.

References

  1. Java Grande benchmark. http://www2.epcc.ed.ac.uk/javagrande/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Spec jvm98. http://www.spec.org/jvm98/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Arnold, S. Fink, D. Grove, M. Hind, and P.F. Sweeney. Adaptive optimization in the Jalapeno JVM. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, Minneapolis, MN, October 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Arnold, A. Welc, and V.T. Rajan. Improving virtual machine performance using a cross-run profile repository. In the Conference on Object-Oriented Systems, Languages, and Applications, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Berube and J.N. Amaral. Benchmark design for robust profile-directed optimization. In Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) Workshop, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S.M. Blackburn, P. Cheng, and K. McKinley. Oil and water: High performance garbage collection in Java with MMTk. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S.M. Blackburn, P. Cheng, and K.S. McKinley. Myths and realities: the performance impact of garbage collection. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 32(1), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S.M. Blackburn et al. The DaCapo benchmarks: Java benchmarking development and analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, October 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Ding and Y. Zhong. Predicting whole-program locality with reuse distance analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 245--257, San Diego, CA, June 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. L. Eeckhout, H. Vandierendonck, and K.D. Bosschere. Quantifying the impact of input data sets on program behavior and its applications. Journal of Instruction-Level Parallelism, pages 1--33, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Fitzgerald and D. Tarditi. The case for profile-directed selection of garbage collection. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Memory Management, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Georges, D. Buytaert, and L. Eeckhout. Statistically rigorous Java performance evaluation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The elements of statistical learning. Springer, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. F. Mao and X. Shen. Cross-input learning and discriminative prediction in evolvable virtual machine. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Printezis. Hot-swapping between a mark&sweep and a mark&compact garbage collector in a generational environment. In Proceedings of the 1st Java Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. X. Shen and F. Mao. Modeling relations between inputs and dynamic behavior for general programs. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. X. Shen, Y. Zhong, and C. Ding. Predicting locality phases for dynamic memory optimization. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 67(7), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Singer, G. Brown, I. Watson, and J. Cavazos. Intelligent selection of application-specific garbage collectors. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Memory Management, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. F. Smith and G. Morrisett. Comparing mostly-copying and mark-sweep conservative collection. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Memory Management, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Soman, C. Krintz, and D.F. Bacon. Dynamic selection of application-specific garbage collectors. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Memory Management, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. D. Wall. Predicting program behavior using real or estimated profiles. In Proceedings of PLDI, Toronto,Canada, June 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Zorn. Comparing mark-and-sweep and stop-and-copy garbage collection. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The study and handling of program inputs in the selection of garbage collectors

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader