Brian Grant
Markus Mock
Susan J. Eggers
ABSTRACT
Previous selective dynamic compilation systems have demonstrated that dynamic compilation can achieve performance improvements at low cost on small kernels, but they have had difficulty scaling to larger programs. To overcome this limitation, we developed DyC, a selective dynamic compilation system that includes more sophisticated and flexible analyses and transformations. DyC is able to achieve good performance improvements on programs that are much larger and more complex than the kernels. We analyze the individual optimizations of DyC and assess their impact on performance collectively and individually.
- 1.J. Auslander, M. Philipose, C. Chambers, S. Eggers, and B. Bershad. Fast, effective dynamic compilation. SIGPLAN Notices, pages 149- 159, May 1996. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '96 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.B. Calder, P. Feller, and A. Eustace. Value profiling. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pages 259-269, December 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.Craig Chambers and Weimin Chen. Efficient predicate dispatching. Technical Report UW-CSE-98-12-02, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. University of Washington, December 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.Craig Chambers and David Ungar. Customization: Optimizing compiler technology for Self, a dynamically-typed object-oriented programming language. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN '89 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 146-160, June 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.Craig Chambers and David Ungar. Making pure object-oriented languages practical. In Proceedings OOPSLA '91, pages 1-15, November 1991. Published as ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 26, number 11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.C. Consel and F. Noel. A general approach for run-time specialization and its application to C. In Conference Record of POPL '96: 23rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 145-156, January 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7.Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, and Ronald L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press/McGraw-Hill, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.R. Cytron, J. Ferrante, B.K. Rosen, M.N. Wegman, and F.K. Zadeck. An efficient method of computing static single assignment form. In Conference Record of the Sixteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 25-35, January 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.L. Peter Deutsch and Allan M. Schiffman. Efficient implementation of the Smalltalk-80 system. In Conference Record of the Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 297-302, January 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 10.Patrick H. Dussud. TICLOS: An implementation of CLOS for the Explorer family. In Proceedings OOPSLA '89, pages 215-220, October 1989. Published as ACM SIGPLAN Notices, volume 24, number 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.S.J. Eggers, J.S. Emer, H.M. Levy, J.L. Lo, R.L. Stamm, and D.M. Tullsen. Simultaneous multithreading: A foundation for nextgeneration processors. IEEE Micro, 17(5):12-19, August 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12.D.R. Engler, W. C. Hsieh, and M. F. Kaashoek. 'C: A language for high-level, efficient, and machine-independent dynamic code generation. In Conference Record of POPL '96: 23rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 131-144, january 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.B. Grant, M. Mock, M. Philipose, C. Chambers, and S.J. Eggers. Annotation-directed run-time specialization in C. In Proceedings of the A CM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation, pages 163-178, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1997. New York: ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.B. Grant, M. Mock, M. Philipose, C. Chambers, and S.J. Eggers. DyC: An expressive annotation-directed dynamic compiler for C. Theoretical Computer Science. To appear. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15.M.D. Hill and A.Jay Smith. Experimental evaluation of on-chip microprocessor cache memories, in ISCA '84, June 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.Urs H61zle, Craig Chambers, and David Ungar. Optimizing dynamically-typed object-oriented languages with polymorphic inline caches. In P. America, editor, Proceedings ECOOP '91, LNCS 512, pages 21-38, Geneva, Switzerland, July 15-19 1991. Springer- Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.Urs H61zle and David Ungar. Optimizing dynamically-dispatched calls with run-time type feedback. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '94 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 326-336, June 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.Urs H61zle and David Ungar. Reconciling responsiveness with performance in pure object-oriented languages. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 18(4):355-400, July 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19.L. Hornof and J. Noy6. Accurate binding-time analysis for imperative languages: Flow, context, and return sensitivity. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Partial Evaluation and Seman-tics- Based Program Manipulation, pages 63-73, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1997. New York: ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.Neil D. Jones, CarsteinK. Gomarde, and Peter Sestoft. Partial Evaluation and Automatic Program Generation. Prentice Hall, New York, NY, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.M. Leone and P. Lee. Optimizing ML with run-time code generation. Technical report CMU-CS-95-205, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 1995.Google Scholar
- 22.Mark Leone and Peter Lee. Dynamic specialization in the Fabius system. ACM Computing Surveys, 30(3es):23-es, September 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.P.G. Lowney, S. M. Freudenberger, T. J. Karzes, W. D. Lichtenstein, R. P. Nix, J. S. O'Donnell, and J. C. Ruttenberg. The Multifiow trace scheduling compiler. Journal of Supercomputing, 7(1-2):51-142, May 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24.Mesa web page. http://www, ssec.wisc.edu/brianp/Mesa.html.Google Scholar
- 25.Netpbm web page. ftp://wuarchive.wustl.edu/graphics/graphics/ packages/NetPBM/.Google Scholar
- 26.E NoEl, L. Hornof, C. Consel, and J. L. Lawall. Automatic, templatebased run-time specialization: Implementation and experimental study. In International Conference on Computer Languages, May 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 27.M. Poletto, D. R. Engler, and M. E Kaashoek. tcc: A system for fast, flexible, and high-level dynamic code generation. SIGPLAN Notices, pages 109-121, June 1997. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '97 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 28.M. Poletto, D. R. Engler W.C. Hsieh, and M. F. Kaashoek. 'C and tcc: A language and compiler for dynamic code generation. To appear in Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 29.EminGun Sirer. Measuring Limits of Fine-Grain Parallelism. Princeton University Senior Project, June 1993.Google Scholar
- 30.SPEC CPU, August 1995. http://www, specbench.org/.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- An evaluation of staged run-time optimizations in DyC
Recommendations
An evaluation of staged run-time optimizations in DyC
Previous selective dynamic compilation systems have demonstrated that dynamic compilation can achieve performance improvements at low cost on small kernels, but they have had difficulty scaling to larger programs. To overcome this limitation, we ...
The benefits and costs of DyC's run-time optimizations
DyC selectively dynamically compiles programs during their execution, utilizing the run-time-computed values of variables and data structures to apply optimizations that are based on partial evaluation. The dynamic optimizations are preplanned at static ...
Staged compilation
PEPM '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Partial evaluation and semantics-based program manipulationTraditional compilers compile and optimize files separately, making worst-case assumptions about the program context in which a file is to be linked. More aggressive compilation architectures perform cross-file interprocedural or whole-program analyses, ...
Comments