OPTIMAL BASIC BLOCK INSTRUCTION SCHEDULING FOR MULTIPLE-ISSUE PROCESSORS USING CONSTRAINT PROGRAMMING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instruction scheduling is one of the most important steps for improving the performance of object code produced by a compiler. A fundamental problem that arises in instruction scheduling is to find a minimum length schedule for a basic block — a straight-line sequence of code with a single entry point and a single exit point — subject to precedence, latency, and resource constraints. Solving the problem exactly is NP-complete, and heuristic approaches are currently used in most compilers. In contrast, we present a scheduler that finds provably optimal schedules for basic blocks using techniques from constraint programming. In developing our optimal scheduler, the key to scaling up to large, real problems was in the development of preprocessing techniques for improving the constraint model. We experimentally evaluated our optimal scheduler on the SPEC 2000 integer and floating point benchmarks. On this benchmark suite, the optimal scheduler was very robust — all but a handful of the hundreds of thousands of basic blocks in our benchmark suite were solved optimally within a reasonable time limit — and scaled to the largest basic blocks, including basic blocks with up to 2600 instructions. This compares favorably to the best previous exact approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".