Dynamic native optimization of interpreters

ABSTRACT

For domain specific languages, "scripting languages", dynamic languages, and for virtual machine-based languages, the most straightforward implementation strategy is to write an interpreter. A simple interpreter consists of a loop that fetches the next bytecode, dispatches to the routine handling that bytecode, then loops. There are many ways to improve upon this simple mechanism, but as long as the execution of the program is driven by a representation of the program other than as a stream of native instructions, there will be some "interpretive overhead".There is a long history of approaches to removing interpretive overhead from programming language implementations. In practice, what often happens is that, once an interpreted language becomes popular, pressure builds to improve performance until eventually a project is undertaken to implement a native Just In Time (JIT) compiler for the language. Implementing a JIT is usually a large effort, affects a significant part of the existing language implementation, and adds a significant amount of code and complexity to the overall code base.In this paper, we present an innovative approach that dynamically removes much of the interpreted overhead from language implementations, with minimal instrumentation of the original interpreter. While it does not give the performance improvements of hand-crafted native compilers, our system provides an appealing point on the language implementation spectrum.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ali-Reza Adl-Tabatabai , Michał Cierniak , Guei-Yuan Lueh , Vishesh M. Parikh , James M. Stichnoth, Fast, effective code generation in a just-in-time Java compiler, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1998 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.280-290, June 17-19, 1998, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
• 2: Jennifer M. Anderson , Lance M. Berc , Jeffrey Dean , Sanjay Ghemawat , Monika R. Henzinger , Shun-Tak A. Leung , Richard L. Sites , Mark T. Vandevoorde , Carl A. Waldspurger , William E. Weihl, Continuous profiling: where have all the cycles gone?, Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.1-14, October 05-08, 1997, Saint Malo, France
• 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: Vasanth Bala , Evelyn Duesterwald , Sanjeev Banerjia, Dynamo: a transparent dynamic optimization system, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2000 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.1-12, June 18-21, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 5: D. Bruening, E. Duesterwald, and S. Amarasinghe. Design and implementation of a dynamic optimization framework for Windows. In 4th ACM Workshop on Feedback-Directed and Dynamic Optimization (FDDO-4), Dec. 2001.
• 6: Bryan Buck , Jeffrey K. Hollingsworth, An API for Runtime Code Patching, International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, v.14 n.4, p.317-329, November 2000 [doi>10.1177/109434200001400404]
• 7: W.-K. Chen, S. Lerner, R. Chaiken, and D. M. Gillies. Mojo: A dynamic optimization system. In 3rd ACM Workshop on Feedback-Directed and Dynamic Optimization (FDDO-3), Dec. 2000.
• 8: Anton Chernoff , Mark Herdeg , Ray Hookway , Chris Reeve , Norman Rubin , Tony Tye , S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli , John Yates, FX!32: A Profile-Directed Binary Translator, IEEE Micro, v.18 n.2, p.56-64, March 1998 [doi>10.1109/40.671403]
• 9: Bob Cmelik , David Keppel, Shade: a fast instruction-set simulator for execution profiling, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGMETRICS conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems, p.128-137, May 16-20, 1994, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
• 10: Robert Cohn , P. Geoffrey Lowney, Hot cold optimization of large Windows/NT applications, Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM/IEEE international symposium on Microarchitecture, p.80-89, December 02-04, 1996, Paris, France
• 11: Charles Consel , François Noël, A general approach for run-time specialization and its application to C, Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.145-156, January 21-24, 1996, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, United States [doi>10.1145/237721.237767]
• 12: D. Deaver, R. Gorton, and N. Rubin. Wiggins/Restone: An on-line program specializer. In Proceedings of Hot Chips 11, Aug. 1999.
• 13: L. Peter Deutsch , Allan M. Schiffman, Efficient implementation of the smalltalk-80 system, Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, p.297-302, January 15-18, 1984, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/800017.800542]
• 14: Evelyn Duesterwald , Vasanth Bala, Software profiling for hot path prediction: less is more, Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, p.202-211, November 2000, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
• 15: Kemal Ebcioğlu , Erik R. Altman, DAISY: dynamic compilation for 100% architectural compatibility, Proceedings of the 24th annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.26-37, June 01-04, 1997, Denver, Colorado, United States
• 16: E. Feigin. A Case for Automatic Run-Time Code Optimization. Senior thesis, Harvard College, Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Apr. 1999.
• 17: Brian Grant , Matthai Philipose , Markus Mock , Craig Chambers , Susan J. Eggers, An evaluation of staged run-time optimizations in DyC, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1999 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.293-304, May 01-04, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
• 18: J. Hollingsworth, B. Miller, and J. Cargille. Dynamic program instrumentation for scalable performance tools. In Proceedings of the 1994 Scalable High-Performance Computing Conference, May 1994.
• 19: U. Hölzle. Adaptive Optimization for Self: Reconciling High Performance with Exploratory Programming. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1994.
• 20: The Java HotSpot performance engine architecture.
• 21: Thomas Kistler , Michael Franz, Continuous Program Optimization: Design and Evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Computers, v.50 n.6, p.549-566, June 2001 [doi>10.1109/12.931893]
• 22: A. Klaiber. The technology behind Crusoe processors. Transmeta Corporation, Jan. 2000.
• 23: C. Krintz, D. Grove, V. Sarkar, and B. Calder. Reducing the overhead of dynamic compilation. Software: Practice and Experience, 31(8), Mar. 2001.
• 24: Peter Lee , Mark Leone, Optimizing ML with run-time code generation, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1996 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.137-148, May 21-24, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
• 25: M. Leone and R. K. Dybvig. Dynamo: A staged compiler architecture for dynamic program optimization. Technical Report 490, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University, Sept. 1997.
• 26: Barton P. Miller , Mark D. Callaghan , Jonathan M. Cargille , Jeffrey K. Hollingsworth , R. Bruce Irvin , Karen L. Karavanic , Krishna Kunchithapadam , Tia Newhall, The Paradyn Parallel Performance Measurement Tool, Computer, v.28 n.11, p.37-46, November 1995 [doi>10.1109/2.471178]
• 27: C. H. Moore and G. C. Leach. Forth --- a language for interactive computing. Technical report, Mohasco Industries, Inc., Amsterdam, NY, 1970.
• 28: Robert Muth , Saumya K. Debray , Scott Watterson , Koen De Bosschere, Alto: a link-time optimizer for the Compaq alpha, Software—Practice & Experience, v.31 n.1, p.67-101, Jan. 2001 [doi>10.1002/1097-024X(200101)31:1<67::AID-SPE357>3.0.CO;2-A]
• 29: Ian Piumarta , Fabio Riccardi, Optimizing direct threaded code by selective inlining, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1998 conference on Programming language design and implementation, p.291-300, June 17-19, 1998, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
• 30: A. Robinson. Why dynamic translation? Transitive Technologies Ltd., May 2001.
• 31: Eric Rotenberg , Steve Bennett , James E. Smith, Trace cache: a low latency approach to high bandwidth instruction fetching, Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM/IEEE international symposium on Microarchitecture, p.24-35, December 02-04, 1996, Paris, France
• 32: A. Srivastava, A. Edwards, and H. Vo. Vulcan: Binary transformation in a distributed environment. Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-50, Microsoft Research, Apr. 2001.
• 33: David Ung , Cristina Cifuentes, Machine-adaptable dynamic binary translation, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Dynamic and adaptive compilation and optimization, p.41-51, January 2000

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.0 General

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.4 Processors
          Subjects: Interpreters