MiCOMP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent compilers offer a vast number of multilayered optimizations targeting different code segments of an application. Choosing among these optimizations can significantly impact the performance of the code being optimized. The selection of the right set of compiler optimizations for a particular code segment is a very hard problem, but finding the best ordering of these optimizations adds further complexity. Finding the best ordering represents a long standing problem in compilation research, named the phase-ordering problem. The traditional approach of constructing compiler heuristics to solve this problem simply cannot cope with the enormous complexity of choosing the right ordering of optimizations for every code segment in an application. This article proposes an automatic optimization framework we call MiCOMP, which <u>Mi</u>tigates the <u>Com</u>piler <u>P</u>hase-ordering problem. We perform phase ordering of the optimizations in LLVM’s highest optimization level using optimization sub-sequences and machine learning. The idea is to cluster the optimization passes of LLVM’s O3 setting into different clusters to predict the speedup of a complete sequence of all the optimization clusters instead of having to deal with the ordering of more than 60 different individual optimizations. The predictive model uses (1) dynamic features, (2) an encoded version of the compiler sequence, and (3) an exploration heuristic to tackle the problem. Experimental results using the LLVM compiler framework and the Cbench suite show the effectiveness of the proposed clustering and encoding techniques to application-based reordering of passes, while using a number of predictive models. We perform statistical analysis on the results and compare against (1) random iterative compilation, (2) standard optimization levels, and (3) two recent prediction approaches. We show that MiCOMP’s iterative compilation using its sub-sequences can reach an average performance speedup of 1.31 (up to 1.51). Additionally, we demonstrate that MiCOMP’s prediction model outperforms the -O1, -O2, and -O3 optimization levels within using just a few predictions and reduces the prediction error rate down to only 5%. Overall, it achieves 90% of the available speedup by exploring less than 0.001% of the optimization space.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.096 |
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".