MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Performance of the Eclipse OpenJ9 JVM JIT Compiler on AArch64

2022· article· en· W4308091043 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron G. Graham, Jean-Philippe Legault, Hillary Soontiens, Julie Brown, Stephen A. MacKay, Gerhard W. Dueck, Kenneth B. Kent, Kazuhiro Konno, Daryl Maier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)University of New Brunswick
FundersInnovation FundNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationUniversity of New Brunswick
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerPortingJust-in-time compilationOperating systemx86JavaVirtual machineEclipseCloud computingRuntime systemDynamic compilationEmbedded systemSoftware engineeringSoftwareProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The embedded computing market, which includes Internet-of-Things (IoT) and mobile computing devices, is a non-traditional computing market where computation resources are limited. Therefore, software, particularly the managed runtime, is required to be more compact and efficient than in a cloud/desktop-based environment. This paper focuses on porting the Eclipse OpenJ9 runtime, a Java Virtual Machine (JVM), built on top of Eclipse OMR, to a new environment while continuing to provide a generic runtime environment. The low-power AArch64 (ARMv8-A) platform is becoming the answer for resource constrained environments of embedded systems. We evaluate and validate the AArch64 implementation of OpenJ9’s Just-in-Time (JIT) compiler against more mature architectures currently available, namely x86-64. The evaluation reveals performance discrepancies and necessary improvements, beyond those that are already known. Our work is an effort to template new architectural support and allow others to follow our model. We provide a baseline for future research on OpenJ9, OMR and the JIT on the AArch64 platform and outline some improvements as future work.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207