Re: [abc-users] Relational aspects running time

Default heap space initially, currently running it with 256-512MB,
execution is still at i=12(for a few minutes) at the time of writing of
this email, no out of memory errors have been thrown so far.

Memory consumption increases over time though (260MB taken up by
java.exe so far).

I'm running on Windows XP with 2GB of RAM if that matters.

Eric Bodden wrote:
> Might be a bug. How much heap space do you give it?
>
> Eric
>
> On 16/03/2008, Alan Teoh <alan.teoh07_at_imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> It must have been somewhere in the code itself, but I am not able to
>> figure what it was.
>> Here was the output:
>> 0
>> 2
>> 4
>> 6
>> 8
>> 10
>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>> at java.util.HashMap.<init>(Unknown Source)
>> at java.util.LinkedHashMap.<init>(Unknown Source)
>> at java.util.HashSet.<init>(Unknown Source)
>> at java.util.LinkedHashSet.<init>(Unknown Source)
>> at Disjunct$relaspecttm$3.<init>(Jasmin)
>> at Disjunct$relaspecttm$3.addNegativeBindingForVariableb1(Jasmin)
>> at
>> Disjunct$relaspecttm$3.addNegativeBindingsForSymbolassociate(Jasmin)
>> at
>> Constraint$relaspecttm$3.doNegativeBindingsForSymbolassociate(Jasmin)
>> at Event$relaspecttm$3.doNegativeUpdates(Jasmin)
>> at Equality.beforeafter$17(Equality.aj)
>> at Test.main(Test.java:11)
>>
>> (Sorry I meant i=12 not i=8, but still)
>>
>> Compiled using the abc binary via the SVN link you gave me:
>>
>> http://abc.comlab.ox.ac.uk/products/trunk/abc-with-tests/
>>
>> abc -ext abc.ra Bit.java Equality.aj Test.java
>>
>> I will try the benchmark on the website out.
>>
>> Thanks anyway.
>>
>>
>> Eric Bodden wrote:
>> > You run out of memory at i=8? That makes no sense to me. I have no idea...
>> >
>> > If I find the time I will look into it next week.
>> >
>> > Strangely, we did similar benchmarks for our paper (available on our
>> > website) and found no such odd behavior.
>> >
>> > Eric
>> >
>> > On 16/03/2008, Alan Teoh <alan.teoh07_at_imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Eric,
>> >> Perhaps my previous benchmark was a bit too small to be an indicator of
>> >> anything.
>> >>
>> >> The following was the full code that I used. The relational aspect and
>> >> the Bit remain the same.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> class Test {
>> >> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> >> Bit[] bits = new Bit[10000];
>> >> Bit b1 = new Bit();
>> >> Bit b2 = new Bit();
>> >>
>> >> for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
>> >> bits[i] = new Bit();
>> >> }
>> >> // Test memory consumption
>> >> for(int i = 0; i < 5000; i+=2) {
>> >> Equality.associate(bits[i], bits[i+1]); // Problem seems to
>> >> start here
>> >> System.out.println(i);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> Equality.associate(b1, b2);
>> >> // Test running time
>> >> long time;
>> >> for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>> >> time = System.currentTimeMillis();
>> >>
>> >> for(int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) {
>> >> b1.set();
>> >> b1.clear();
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> System.out.println("Operation took " +
>> >> (System.currentTimeMillis() - time) + " milliseconds");
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> I ran the same code with association aspects (using the aspect provided
>> >> by the paper by Sakurai et al.), and the benchmark was over in a few
>> >> seconds. However, with relational aspects, the computation seems to take
>> >> some time in the loop (for(int i = 0; i < 5000; i+=2) ). In fact,
>> >> memory(Java heap space) runs out when i = 8. And as in the previous
>> >> email, when I commented the relational advices off, the code will run
>> >> and finish quickly without such problems. Obviously, by doing
>> >> that(commenting the relational advices) I would have defeated the point
>> >> of relational aspects, so that was the reason why I was wondering what
>> >> could be wrong with it?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Eric Bodden wrote:
>> >> > Hi, Alan.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your benchmark is way too small to conclude anything at all about running time.
>> >> >
>> >> > In general, as we write in the paper, relational aspects *are* slower
>> >> > than the implementation by Sakurai et al.. However, there should be no
>> >> > exponential increase.
>> >> >
>> >> > Eric
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 16/03/2008, Alan Teoh <alan.teoh07_at_imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have been playing around with relational aspects, and I stumbled upon
>> >> >> a problem with its running time. Code is as follows (using Sakurai et
>> >> >> al's Bit idea from association aspects, as well as the relational aspect
>> >> >> from the relational aspects paper):
>> >> >>
>> >> >> class Bit {
>> >> >> boolean value = false;
>> >> >> public void set() { value = true; }
>> >> >> public void clear() { value = false; }
>> >> >> boolean get() { return value; }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Relational aspect is as follows:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> relational aspect Equality(Bit b1, Bit b2) {
>> >> >> relational after(): call(public void Bit.set()) && target(b1) {
>> >> >> b2.set();
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> relational after(): call(public void Bit.clear()) && target(b1) {
>> >> >> b2.clear();
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Using this Test file:
>> >> >> class Test {
>> >> >> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> >> >> Bit[] Bits = new Bit[10000];
>> >> >> Bit b1 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b2 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b3 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b4 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b5 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b6 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b7 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b8 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b9 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Bit b10 = new Bit();
>> >> >> Equality.associate(b1, b2);
>> >> >> Equality.associate(b3, b4);
>> >> >> Equality.associate(b5, b6);
>> >> >> Equality.associate(b7, b8);
>> >> >> Equality.associate(b9, b10);
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My problem is that whenever I try to associate more and more Bit
>> >> >> objects, the running time just increases in an exponential manner. When
>> >> >> I comment the relational advices out however, the running time is quick,
>> >> >> thus the relational advices are causing the problem here. I realise that
>> >> >> for every relational advice is made up by a tracematch. However, I do
>> >> >> not see how it actually affects the running time in such a drastic
>> >> >> manner, given that the only amount of objects(which are visible to me)
>> >> >> that are involved here are only 10, and there are only 5 aspect
>> >> >> instances. Explanation on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Many thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 16 2008 - 21:56:31 GMT