1. Partial Method Compilation using Dynamic Profile Information John Whaley Stanford University October 17, 2001

2. Outline Background and Overview Dynamic Compilation System Partial Method Compilation Technique Optimizations Experimental Results Related Work Conclusion

3. Dynamic Compilation We want code performance comparable to static compilation techniques However, we want to avoid long startup delays and slow responsiveness Dynamic compiler should be fast AND good

4. Traditional approach Interpreter plus optimizing compiler Switch from interpreter to optimizing compiler via some heuristic Problems: Interpreter is too slow! (10x to 100x)

5. Another approach Simple compiler plus optimizing compiler (Jalapeno, JUDO, Microsoft) Switch from simple to optimizing compiler via some heuristic Problems: Code from simple compiler is still too slow! (30% to 100% slower than optimizing) Memory footprint problems (Suganuma et al., OOPSLA’01)

6. Yet another approach Multi-level compilation (Jalapeno, HotSpot) Use multiple compiled versions to slowly “accelerate” into optimized execution Problems: This simply increases the delay before the program runs at full speed!

7. Problem with compilation Compilation takes time proportional to the amount of code being compiled Many optimizations are superlinear in the size of the code Compilation of large amounts of code is the cause of undesirably long compilation times

8. Methods can be large All of these techniques operate at method boundaries Methods can be large, especially after inlining Cutting inlining too much hurts performance considerably (Arnold et al., Dynamo’00) Even when being frugal about inlining, methods can still become very large

9. Methods are poor boundaries Method boundaries do not correspond very well to the code that would most benefit from optimization Even “hot” methods typically contain some code that is rarely or never executed

10. Example: SpecJVM db void read_db(String fn) { int n = 0, act = 0; byte buffer[] = null; try { FileInputStream sif = new FileInputStream(fn); buffer = new byte[n]; while ((b = sif.read(buffer, act, n-act))>0) { act = act + b; } sif.close(); if (act != n) { /* lots of error handling code, rare */ } } catch (IOException ioe) { /* lots of error handling code, rare */ } Hot loop

11. Example: SpecJVM db Lots of rare code! void read_db(String fn) { int n = 0, act = 0; byte buffer[] = null; try { FileInputStream sif = new FileInputStream(fn); buffer = new byte[n]; while ((b = sif.read(buffer, act, n-act))>0) { act = act + b; } sif.close(); if (act != n) { /* lots of error handling code, rare */ } } catch (IOException ioe) { /* lots of error handling code, rare */ }

12. Hot “regions”, not methods The regions that are important to compile have nothing to do with the method boundaries Using a method granularity causes the compiler to waste time optimizing large pieces of code that do not matter

13. Overview of our technique Increase the precision of selective compilation to operate at a sub-method granularity 1.Collect basic block level profile data for hot methods 2.Recompile using the profile data, replacing rare code entry points with branches into the interpreter

14. Overview of our technique Takes advantage of the well-known fact that a large amount of code is rarely or never executed Simple to understand and implement, yet highly effective Beneficial secondary effect of improving optimization opportunities on the common paths

15. Overview of Dynamic Compilation System

16. interpreted code compiled code fully optimized code when execution count = t1 when execution count = t2 Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3:

17. Identifying rare code Simple technique: any basic block executed during Stage 2 is said to be hot Effectively ignores initialization Add instrumentation to the targets of conditional forward branches Better techniques exist, but using this we saw no performance degradation Enable/disable profiling is implicitly handled by stage transitions

18. Method-at-a-time strategy execution threshold % of basic blocks

19. execution threshold Actual basic blocks executed % of basic blocks

20. Partial method compilation technique

21. Technique 1.Based on profile data, determine the set of rare blocks. Use code coverage information from the first compiled version

22. Technique 2.Perform live variable analysis. Determine the set of live variables at rare block entry points live: x,y,z

23. Technique 3.Redirect the control flow edges that targeted rare blocks, and remove the rare blocks. to interpreter…

24. Technique 4.Perform compilation normally. Analyses treat the interpreter transfer point as an unanalyzable method call.

25. Technique 5.Record a map for each interpreter transfer point. In code generation, generate a map that specifies the location, in registers or memory, of each of the live variables. Maps are typically < 100 bytes x: sp - 4 y: R1 z: sp - 8 live: x,y,z

26. Optimizations

27. Partial dead code elimination Modified dead code elimination to treat rare blocks specially Move computation that is only live on a rare path into the rare block, saving computation in the common case

28. Partial dead code elimination Optimistic approach on SSA form Mark all instructions that compute essential values, recursively Eliminate all non-essential instructions

29. Partial dead code elimination Calculate necessary code, ignoring all rare blocks For each rare block, calculate the instructions that are necessary for that rare block, but not necessary in non-rare blocks If these instructions are recomputable at the point of the rare block, they can be safely copied there

30. Partial dead code example x = 0; if (rare branch 1) {... z = x + y;... } if (rare branch 2) {... a = x + z;... }

31. Partial dead code example if (rare branch 1) { x = 0;... z = x + y;... } if (rare branch 2) { x = 0;... a = x + z;... }

32. Pointer and escape analysis Treating an entrance to the rare path as a method call is a conservative assumption Typically does not matter because there are no merges back into the common path However, this conservativeness hurts pointer and escape analysis because a single unanalyzed call kills all information

33. Pointer and escape analysis Stack allocate objects that don’t escape in the common blocks Eliminate synchronization on objects that don’t escape the common blocks If a branch to a rare block is taken: Copy stack-allocated objects to the heap and update pointers Reapply eliminated synchronizations

34. Copying from stack to heap stack object Heap stack object copy rewrite

35. Reconstructing interpreter state We use a runtime “glue” routine Construct a set of interpreter stack frames, initialized with their corresponding method and bytecode pointers Iterate through each location pair in the map, and copy the value at the location to its corresponding position in the interpreter stack frame Branch into the interpreter, and continue execution

36. Experimental Results

37. Experimental Methodology Fully implemented in a proprietary system Unfortunately, cannot publish those numbers! Proof-of-concept implementation in the joeq virtual machine http://joeq.sourceforge.net http://joeq.sourceforge.net Unfortunately, joeq does not perform significant optimizations!

38. Experimental Methodology Also implemented as an offline step, using refactored class files Use offline profile information to split methods into “hot” and “cold” parts We then rely on the virtual machine’s default method-at-a-time strategy Provides a reasonable approximation of the effectiveness of this technique Can also be used as a standalone optimizer Available under LGPL as part of joeq release

39. Experimental Methodology IBM JDK 1.3 cx130-20010626 on RedHat Linux 7.1 Pentium 3 600 mhz, 512 MB RAM Thresholds: t1 = 2000, t2 = 25000 Benchmarks: SpecJVM, SwingSet, Linpack, JavaLex, JavaCup

40. Run time improvement First bar: original Second bar: PMC Third bar: PMC + my opts Blue: optimized execution

41. Related Work Dynamic techniques Dynamo (Bala et al., PLDI’00) Self (Chambers et al., OOPSLA’91) HotSpot (JVM’01) IBM JDK (Ishizaki et al., OOPSLA’00)

42. Related Work Static techniques Trace scheduling (Fisher, 1981) Superblock scheduling (IMPACT compiler) Partial redundancy elimination with cost- benefit analysis (Horspool, 1997) Optimal compilation unit shapes (Bruening, FDDO’00) Profile-guided code placement strategies

43. Conclusion Partial method compilation technique is simple to implement, yet very effective Compile times reduced drastically Overall run times improved by an average of 10%, and up to 32% System is available under LGPL at: http://joeq.sourceforge.net http://joeq.sourceforge.net