In or out?: putting write barriers in their place

ABSTRACT

In many garbage collected systems, the mutator performs a write barrier for every pointer update. Using generational garbage collectors, we study in depth three code placement options for remembered-set write barriers: inlined, out-of-line, and partially inlined (fast path inlined, slow path out-of-line). The fast path determines if the collector needs to remember thepointer update. The slow path records the pointer in a list when necessary. Efficient implementations minimize the instructions on the fast path, and record few pointers (from 0.16 to 3% of pointer stores in our benchmarks). We find the mutator performs best with a partially inlined barrier, by a modest 1.5% on average over full inlining.We also study the compilation cost of write-barrier code placement. We find that partial inlining reduces the compilation cost by 20 to 25% compared to full inlining. In the context of just-in-time compilation, the application is exposed to compiler activity. Regardless of the level of compiler activity, partial inlining consistently gives a total running time performance advantage over full inlining on the benchmarks. When the compiler optimizes all application methods on demand and compiler load is highest, partial inlining improves total performance on average by 10.2%, and up to 18.5%.

REFERENCES

• 1: B. Alpern , C. R. Attanasio , J. J. Barton , M. G. Burke , P. Cheng , J.-D. Choi , A. Cocchi , S. J. Fink , D. Grove , M. Hind , S. F. Hummel , D. Lieber , V. Litvinov , M. F. Mergen , T. Ngo , J. R. Russell , V. Sarkar , M. J. Serrano , J. C. Shepherd , S. E. Smith , V. C. Sreedhar , H. Srinivasan , J. Whaley, The Jalapeño virtual machine, IBM Systems Journal, v.39 n.1, p.211-238, January 2000
• 2: Bowen Alpern , C. R. Attanasio , Anthony Cocchi , Derek Lieber , Stephen Smith , Ton Ngo , John J. Barton , Susan Flynn Hummel , Janice C. Sheperd , Mark Mergen, Implementing jalapeño in Java, Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.314-324, November 01-05, 1999, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 3: Matthew Arnold , Stephen Fink , David Grove , Michael Hind , Peter F. Sweeney, Adaptive optimization in the Jalapeño JVM, Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.47-65, October 2000, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
• 4: Matthew Arnold , Stephen Fink , Vivek Sarkar , Peter F. Sweeney, A comparative study of static and profile-based heuristics for inlining, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Dynamic and adaptive compilation and optimization, p.52-64, January 2000
• 5: Alain Azagury , Elliot K. Kolodner , Erez Petrank , Zvi Yehudai, Combining card marking with remembered sets: how to save scanning time, Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Memory management, p.10-19, October 17-19, 1998, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 6: A. W. Appel, Simple generational garbage collection and fast allocation, Software—Practice & Experience, v.19 n.2, p.171-183, February 1989 [doi>10.1002/spe.4380190206]
• 7: Andrew Ayers , Richard Schooler , Robert Gottlieb, Aggressive inlining, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1997 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.134-145, June 16-18, 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
• 8: Stephen M Blackburn , Richard Jones , Kathryn S. McKinley , J Eliot B Moss, Beltway: getting around garbage collection gridlock, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2002 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, June 17-19, 2002, Berlin, Germany
• 9: A. M. Cheadle , A. J. Field , S. Marlow , S. L. Peyton Jones , R. L. While, Non-stop Haskell, Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming, p.257-267, September 2000
• 10: Craig David Chambers, The design and implementation of the self compiler, an optimizing compiler for object-oriented programming languages, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1992
• 11: K. Cooper, M. W. Hall, and K. Kennedy. Procedure cloning. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on Computer Language, pages 96--105, Oakland, CA, April 1992
• 12: Keith D. Cooper , Mary W. Hall , Linda Torczon, An experiment with inline substitution, Software—Practice & Experience, v.21 n.6, p.581-601, June 1991 [doi>10.1002/spe.4380210604]
• 13: Perry Cheng , Robert Harper , Peter Lee, Generational stack collection and profile-driven pretenuring, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1998 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.162-173, June 17-19, 1998, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
• 14: Keith D. Cooper , Mary W. Hall , Linda Torczon, Unexpected side effects of inline substitution: a case study, ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems (LOPLAS), v.1 n.1, p.22-32, March 1992 [doi>10.1145/130616.130619]
• 15: George E. Collins, A method for overlapping and erasure of lists, Communications of the ACM, v.3 n.12, p.655-657, Dec. 1960 [doi>10.1145/367487.367501]
• 16: Patrick J. Caudill , Allen Wirfs-Brock, A third generation Smalltalk-80 implementation, Conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications, p.119-130, September 29-October 02, 1986, Portland, Oregon, United States
• 17: L. Peter Deutsch , Daniel G. Bobrow, An efficient, incremental, automatic garbage collector, Communications of the ACM, v.19 n.9, p.522-526, Sept. 1976 [doi>10.1145/360336.360345]
• 18: Jeffrey Dean , Craig Chambers, Towards better inlining decisions using inlining trials, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming, p.273-282, June 27-29, 1994, Orlando, Florida, United States
• 19: Stephen J. Fink and David Grove. Personal communication. January 2002
• 20: Robert Fitzgerald , David Tarditi, The case for profile-directed selection of garbage collectors, Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Memory management, p.111-120, October 15-16, 2000, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
• 21: Urs Hölzle. A fast write barrier for generational garbage collectors. In Eliot Moss, Paul R. Wilson, and Benjamin Zorn, editors, OOPSLA/ECOOP '93 Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Systems, October 1993
• 22: Richard L. Hudson and Amer Diwan. Adaptive garbage collection for Modula-3 and Smalltalk. In Eric Jul and Niels-Christian Juul, editors, OOPSLA/ECOOP '90 Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Systems, Ottawa, October 1990.
• 23: Antony L. Hosking and Richard L. Hudson. Remembered sets can also play cards. In Eliot Moss, Paul R. Wilson, and Benjamin Zorn, editors, OOPSLA/ECOOP '93 Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Systems, October 1993
• 24: Richard L. Hudson , J. Eliot B. Moss, Incremental Collection of Mature Objects, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Memory Management, p.388-403, September 17-19, 1992
• 25: Antony L. Hosking , J. Eliot B. Moss , Darko Stefanovic, A comparative performance evaluation of write barrier implementation, conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, p.92-109, October 18-22, 1992, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 26: Richard Jones , Rafael Lins, Garbage collection: algorithms for automatic dynamic memory management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996
• 27: Henry Lieberman , Carl Hewitt, A real-time garbage collector based on the lifetimes of objects, Communications of the ACM, v.26 n.6, p.419-429, June 1983 [doi>10.1145/358141.358147]
• 28: Robert W. Scheifler, An analysis of inline substitution for a structured programming language, Communications of the ACM, v.20 n.9, p.647-654, Sept. 1977 [doi>10.1145/359810.359830]
• 29: Darko Stefanović , Kathryn S. McKinley , J. Eliot B. Moss, Age-based garbage collection, Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.370-381, November 01-05, 1999, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 30: Patrick Sobalvarro, A Lifetime-based Garbage Collector for LISP Systems on General- Purpose Computers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1988
• 31: Darko Stefanovic , J. Eliot Moss, Properties of age-based automatic memory reclamation algorithms, 1999
• 32: David Ungar, Generation Scavenging: A non-disruptive high performance storage reclamation algorithm, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.19 n.5, p.157-167, May 1984
• 33: P. R. Wilson , T. G. Moher, A “card-marking” scheme for controlling intergenerational references in generation-based garbage collection on stock hardware, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.24 n.5, p.87-92, May 1989 [doi>10.1145/66068.66077]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.4 Processors
          Subjects: Memory management (garbage collection)

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Performance

Keywords:
Java, copying collection, generational collection, write barriers