Walid Dabbous
ABSTRACT
A protocol compiler takes as input an abstract specification of a protocol and generates an implementation of that protocol. Protocol compilers usually produce inefficient code both in terms of code speed and code size. In this paper, we show that the combination of two techniques makes it possible to build protocol compilers that generate efficient code. These techniques are i) the use of a compiler that generates from the specification a unique tree-shaped automaton (rather than multiple independent automata), and ii) the use of optimization techniques applied at the automaton level, i.e. on the branches of the trees.We have developed a protocol compiler that uses both these techniques. The compiler takes as input a protocol specification written in the synchronous language Esterel. The specification is compiled into a unique automaton by the Esterel front end compiler. The automaton is then optimized and converted into C code by our protocol optimizer called HIPPCO. HIPPCO improves code performance and reduces code size by simultaneously optimizing the performance of the common path and optimizing the size of the uncommon path. We evaluate the gain expected with our approach on a real-life example, namely a working subset of the TCP protocol generated from an Esterel specification. We compare the protocol code generated with our approach to that derived from the standard BSD TCP implementation. The results are very encouraging. HIPPCO-generated code executes up to 25 % fewer instructions than the BSD code for input packet processing while maintaining comparable code size.
- 1.G. Berry and G. Gonthier. The Esterel synchronous programming language: Design, semantic, implementation. Technical Report 842, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 1988.]]Google Scholar
- 2.G~rard Berry. Real-time programming: Special purpose or general purpose languages. In Information Processing IFIP Conference, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. North Holland, September 1989.]]Google Scholar
- 3.G~rard Berry and Georges Gonthier. Incremental development of an HDLC protocol in esterel. Technical Report 1031, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, May 1989.]]Google Scholar
- 4.Frederic Boussinot and Robert de Simone. The ESTEREL language. Technical Report 1487, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, July 1991.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 5.L. Brakmo and L. Peterson. Performance problems in bsd4.4 tcp. Computer Communication Review, (5):69-86, October 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.C. Castelluccia, I. Chrisment, W. Dabbous, C. Diot, C. Huitema, E. Siegel, and R. De Simone. Tailored protocol development using esterel. Technical Report 2374, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, Octobre 1994.]]Google Scholar
- 7.Claude Castelluccia. Automating header prediction. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Workshop on Compiler Support For System Software, Tucson, Arizona, February 1996.]]Google Scholar
- 8.Claude Castelluccia and Walid Dabbous. Modular communication subsystem implementation using a synchronous approach. In Proceedings of the Usenix High-Speed Networking Symposium, pages 1-11, Oakland, California, August 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.Claude Castelluccia and Walid Dabbous. HIPPCO: an High performance protocol code optimizer. Technical Report 2748, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, December 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 10.Claude Castelluccia and Phillip Hoschka. A compiler-based approach to protocol optimization. In S.-P. Chang, editor, Proceeding of the High Performance Communication Subsystem Workshop, Mistic, Connecticut, USA, August 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 11.P. Chang, S. Mahlke, and W. Hwu. Using profile information to assist classic code optimizations. Software-Practice and Experience, 21(12):1301-1321, 1991.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12.D. Clark, V. Jacobson, J. Romkey, and M. Salwen. An analysis of TCP processing overhead. IEEE Communications Magazine, 27(6):23-29, June 1989.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.David D. Clark and David L. Tennenhouse. Architectural considerations for a new generation of protocols. In Proceedings of the A CM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, pages 200-208, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1990. IEEE. Computer Communications Review, Vol. 20(4), Sept. 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.K. D. Cooper, M. W. Hall, and L. Torczon. An experiment with inline substitution. Software-Practice and Experience, pages 581-601, June 1991.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15.Jon Crowcroft, Ian Wakeman, Zheng Wang, and Dejan Sirovica. Layering considered harmful. IEEE Network Magazine, January 1991.]]Google Scholar
- 16.Jack W. Davidson and Anne M. Holler. Subprogram inlining: A study of a c function inliner. Software-Practice and Experience, 18:775-790, 1988.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.David C. Feldmeier. A survey of high performance protocol implementation techniques. Technical report, Bellcore, February 1993.]]Google Scholar
- 18.Per Gunningberg, Craig Partridge, Teet Sirotkin, and Bjorn Victor. Delayed evaluation of gigabit protocols. In Proceedings of the Second MultiC Workshop, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1991.]]Google Scholar
- 19.J. L. Hennesy and D. D. Patterson. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.B. Hoffmann and W. Effelsberg. Efficient implementation of Estelle specification. Technical Report 3/93, Universitat Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, March 1993.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.Philipp Hoschka. Optimisation Automatique dans un Compilateur de Talon de Communication. PhD thesis, INRIA, Sophia Antipolis, France, July 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 22.Norman C. Hutchinson and Larry L. Peterson. Design of the x-kernel. In Proceedings of the A CM Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols, pages 65-75, Stanford, California, August 1988. ACM. also in Computer Communication Review 18 (4), Aug. 1988.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.S. Leue and Ph. Oechslin. Optimization techniques for parallel protocol implementation. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Workshop on Future Trends in Distributed Computing Systems, pages 387-393, 1992.]]Google Scholar
- 24.J.A. Manas and T. de Miguel. From LOTOS to C. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communications Protocols, pages 79-84, 1988.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 25.Scott McFarling. Program optimization for instruction caches. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 183-191, April 1989.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 26.A. B. Montz, D. Mosberger, S. W. O'Malley, L. L. Paterson, T. A. Proebsting, and J. H. Hartman. Scout: A communications-oriented operating system. Technical Report 94-20, Computer Sciences Department - University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA, June 1994.]]Google Scholar
- 27.David Mosberger, Larry L. Peterson, and Sean O'Malley. Protocol latency: MIPS and reality. Technical Report TR 95-02, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, January 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 28.Philippe Oechslin. Implementation Optimis~e de Protocoles a Haut D~bits. PhD thesis, EPFL Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 29.K. Pettis and R. C. Hansen. Profile guided code positioning. In Proceedings of the A CM $IGPLAN'90 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 16-27, June 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 30.V. Roy and R. de Simone. Auto and autograph. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, June 1990.]]Google Scholar
- 31.K. Trivedi. Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing and Computer Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1982.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 32.Son T. Vuong, Allen C. Lau, and R. Isaac Chan. Semiautomatic implementation of protocols using an Estelle-C compiler. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(3):384-393, March 1988.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Generating efficient protocol code from an abstract specification
Recommendations
Generating efficient protocol code from an abstract specification
A protocol compiler takes as input an abstract specification of a protocol and generates an implementation of that protocol. Protocol compilers usually produce inefficient code both in terms of code speed and code size. In this paper, we show that the ...
An efficient certified email protocol
ISC'07: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Information SecurityA certified email protocol, also known as a nonrepudiation protocol, allows a message to be exchanged for an acknowledgement of reception in a fair manner: a sender Alice sends a message to a receiver Bob if and only if Alice receives a receipt from ...
Comments