MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510617510

Software method level speculation for java

2012· article· en· W2510617510 on OpenAlexaff
Clark Verbrugge, Christopher J. F. Pickett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeculative multithreadingJavaSpeculative executionSpeculationJava concurrencySpeedupReal time JavaOperating systemJava bytecodeProgramming languagestrictfpParallel computingJava annotationBytecodeThread (computing)Multithreading
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speculative multithreading (SpMT), also known as thread level speculation (TLS), is a dynamic parallelization technique that relies on out-of-order execution, dependence buffering, and misspeculation rollback to achieve speedup of sequential programs on multiprocessors. A large number of hardware studies have shown good results for irregular programs, as have a smaller number of software studies in the context of loop level speculation for unmanaged languages. In this thesis we explore software method level speculation for Java. A software environment means that speculation will run on existing multiprocessors, at the cost of extra overhead. Method level speculation (MLS) is a kind of SpMT / TLS that creates threads on method invocation, executing the continuation speculatively. Although MLS can subsume loop level speculation, it is still a relatively unexplored paradigm. The Java programming language and virtual machine environment are rich and complex, posing many implementation challenges, but also supporting a compelling variety of object-oriented programs. We first describe the design and implementation of a prototype system in a Java bytecode interpreter. This includes support for various MLS components, such as return value prediction and dependence buffering, as well as various interactions with features of the Java virtual machine, for example bytecode interpretation, exception handling, and the Java memory model. Experimentally we found that although high thread overheads preclude speedup, we could extract significant parallelism if overheads were excluded. Furthermore, profiling revealed three key areas for optimization. The first key area for optimization was the return value prediction system. In our initial model, a variety of predictors were all executing naively on every method invocation, in order that a hybrid predictor might select the best performing ones. We developed an adaptive system wherein hybrid predictors dynamically specialize on a per-callsite basis, thus dramatically reducing speed and memory costs whilst maintaining high accuracy. The second area for optimization was the nesting model. Our initial system only allowed for out-of-order nesting, wherein a single parent thread creates multiple child threads. Enabling support for in-order nesting exposes significantly more parallelization opportunities, because now speculative child threads can create their own children that are even more speculative. This required developing a memory manager for child threads based on recycling aggregate data structures. We present an operational semantics for our nesting model derived from our implementation. Finally, we use this semantics to address the third area for optimization, namely a need for better fork heuristics. Initial heuristics based on online profiling made it difficult to identify the best places to create threads due to complex feedback interactions between speculation decisions at independent speculation points. This problem grew exponentially worse with the support for in-order nesting. Instead, we chose to clarify the effect of program structure on runtime parallelism. We did this by systematically exploring the interaction between speculation and a variety of coding idioms. The patterns we identify are intended to guide both manual parallelization and static compilation efforts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207