harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Egor Pasko <egor.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][jitrino][test] Large contribution of reliability test cases for DRLVM+Dacapo
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:37:54 GMT
On the 0x50E day of Apache Harmony Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Hi, Egor!
> I will disclose the methodology a little later. If you're interested
> what options were swizzled (I had selected them by hand, m.b. lost
> something), please look into one of that emconfs, there're plenty of
> options in the end of the file.
> Nevertheless there're compiler failures during the swizzling, even if
> the configuration produced is bad, the compiler should tell me about,
> but not crash voluntary :)

not quite possible.

There is no pre-analyser for optimization passes, nor there is
something in each optpass to analyze adjacent optpasses. The best each
optpass can do is to detect that IR is not well-formed. We cannot do
plain well-formedness checks each time due to performance reasons, and
often the fastest way to find an error is to start optimizing and hit
an assertion in code. We do that. There are many downsides of this
approach, one of them is that you have to compile a thousand methods
to detect some obvious configuration inconvenience just because most
methods are not triggering anything interesting.

There are a bunch of asserts to show incorrectness of IR (in debug
mode, for performance reasons, sorry).

> If I had those clues during the search, I would constrain the search
> with those boundaries, but the compiler just crashes. So even some
> failures are right, they need to be documented and some meaningful
> message thrown instead of crash.

What if there is no algorithm to find if an arbitrary optimization
pass is correct in terms of Java semantics? I am not sure it is the
case, but seems like a hard problem in general.

In my opinion some issues can be clearly documented (and should be!)
to avoid simple inconveniences, while others cannot. It is a hard
problem not only to implement this verifying algorithm, but rather to
support it with changing optimization passes.

> That way I think every emconf is worth reviewing.

I would say it is worth reviewing if there is a certain level of
effectiveness in process. Say, no less than 50% of emconf files hit
into a bug in an optimization.

We may jump into analysis of emconf failures with the process like
this: If there is a misconfiguration, add a guarding rule (works as
documentation), if a bug in an optpass, fix it. Although it might seem
the right way to go, it could also lead to thousands of exception
rules without a sound of convergence. Do we need such rules? Do we
want to spend time on gaining this abstract knowledge?

> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the 0x506 day of Apache Harmony Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I had already done the same thing for JikesRVM [1] and now the time
>>> for Harmony has come.
>>> As the part of my MSc thesis I had used GA to swizzle the JIT
>>> configuration for DRLVM in search of optimal one for running
>>> DaCapo/SciMark2
>>> benchmarks. While the performance data is re-verified (there are
>>> preliminary +10% on some sub-benchmarks, btw), I had parsed the
>>> failure logs and this gives me 5.700+ emconfs [2] on which
>>> DRLVM/Jitrino is failing.
>>> The thing that makes those reports really interesting, is that most of
>>> the configurations tested lies near local maxima of performance due to
>>> the nature of search. That makes the tests more valuable as they test
>>> possible near-optimal configurations.
>>> If someone interested in those and wishes to hear more info on the
>>> reports, please don't hesitate to ask :)
>>> I would eventually elaborate on some of these crashes, but not in the
>>> nearest future.
>> Aleksey, great work! (at least on some sub-benchmarks, btw:)
>> Generally I am a bit skeptical about the effectieness of performing
>> analysis these failures. It would be interesting to read about your
>> methodology, i.e. did you put some constraints by hand to avoid
>> failures that are expected by design? An example: if you happen to not
>> put ssa/dessa in the right place (ssa before optimizations that
>> require SSA form, dessa after optimization passes that require no
>> SSA), you get a JIT failure.
>> The sad story is that there are many such "by design" pecularities,
>> many undocumented, many hard to discover.
>> --
>> Egor Pasko

Egor Pasko

View raw message