Re: [abc] PLDI paper

Ondrej,

Those numbers look good. I think those are the categories we want.
Since threadlocal is always better, I think we should just go with
those numbers (it is also our default).

I don't remember if ajc1.2 uses ThreadLocal or not. Do you have
a copy of the ajc 1.2 runtime lib to check? I'm pretty sure that
ajc1.2.1 does use ThreadLocal (but not with my caching trick).

Can you do ajc 1.2 and 1.2.1 (with lib
runtime library for each) so we can compare those too. Looking
at the numbers from the paper, I think we are doing well on
everything but Cona-sim ... I wonder why we are slower there?

Cheers, Laurie

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Laurie Hendren, Professor, School of Computer Science |
| McGill University |
| 318 McConnell Engineering Building tel: (514) 398-7391 |
| 3480 University Street fax: (514) 398-3883 |
| Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7 hendren@cs.mcgill.ca |
| CANADA http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~hendren |
| http://wwww.sable.mcgill.ca http://aspectbench.org |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Ondrej Lhotak wrote:

> Here are the intraprocedural numbers.
>
> noopt means no intraproc optimizations
> sharing means sharing only
> shar+cnt means sharing and using counters
> all3 means sharing, using counters, and -cflow-share-thread-locals
>
> "new" (not threadlocal)
> noopt sharing shar+cnt all3
> figure 1219.82 285.22 139.29 24.56
> quicksort 122.02 75.58 28.39 27.51
> sablecc 30.52 30.11 23.83 22.72
> ants 21.25 21.31 21.21 18.73
> lod-sim 1741.00 50.35 34.75 26.58
> lod-weka 1495.65 155.02 102.33 74.65
> conastack 689.40 91.99 52.60 29.07
> conasim 76.11 75.56 73.49 72.11
>
> "threadlocal"
> noopt sharing shar+cnt all3
> figure 1074.36 238.68 90.26 20.35
> quicksort 122.06 75.08 27.86 27.41
> sablecc 29.65 29.75 23.31 23.05
> ants 19.03 19.27 18.96 17.95
> lod-sim 1723.44 46.47 32.92 25.99
> lod-weka 1351.21 143.32 92.20 74.84
> conastack 594.46 80.00 41.13 27.24
> conasim 75.54 75.34 73.54 71.95
>
> The times are just from one run each, for now, not average-of-5.
>
> Ondrej
>
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 02:12:07PM -0400, Prof. Laurie HENDREN wrote:
> > I have been working on the format (ACM has a new conference proceedings
> > style) and the list of things we need to look at for the final version.
> > Ondrej and I discussed the experiments to do for intraproc cflow opts -
> > now that there are more of them, and he is working on those.
> >
> > In the pldi05abc/ svn directory, the final version we will submit is
> > final.tex. I think most things with the new format have been resolved and
> > I have added the general terms, keywords and so on. We can add more/different
> > keywords if we want.
> >
> > Also, in that directory is TODO.txt, which I include here:
> >
> > ----------- TODO.txt
> >
> > 1) Run around benchmarks -
> > are there some other variations we can do on the inlining?
> >
> > 2) Run intraproc cflow benchmarks -
> > decide if we should show both versions of handling threadlocals?
> >
> > 3) Run interproc cflow benchmarks
> >
> > 4) Check if performance difference between ajc 1.2 and 1.2.1 is due to
> > cflow counters only
> >
> > In reality, there could be several effects:
> >
> > - using counters
> > - better sharing of stacks/counters
> > - not introducing extra copies of counters
> > (may have had a bug in 1.2 - seemed to introduce too many
> > counters)
> > - improvements in runtime lib (i.e. ThreadLocal ... did that come
> > between 1.2 and 1.2.1?)
> > - some other optimization introduced in ajc between 1.2 and 1.2.½
> >
> > 5) Fix bib entries - make sure all titles have caps in right places and
> > page numbers.
> >
> > 6) Change figure for reweaving and perhaps expand upon that section (one
> > reviewer wanted more description of reweaving)
> >
> > 7) Decide if we should mention "other optimizations" or not. If so, fix them
> > up.
> >
> > 8) Damien mentioned a variation of our inter-proc algorithm ... Damien ...
> > what was it - something about not needed something on "all paths"?
> >
> > 9) Formatting of figures and tables. Does everything look ok. Should we put
> > some of the code segments into figures?
> >
> > -----------
> >
> > Cheers, Laurie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +-------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | Laurie Hendren, Professor, School of Computer Science |
> > | McGill University |
> > | 318 McConnell Engineering Building tel: (514) 398-7391 |
> > | 3480 University Street fax: (514) 398-3883 |
> > | Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7 hendren@cs.mcgill.ca |
> > | CANADA http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~hendren |
> > | http://wwww.sable.mcgill.ca http://aspectbench.org |
> > +-------------------------------------------------------------+
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Apr 9 21:01:41 2005