research-article

Optimization coaching: optimizers learn to communicate with programmers

Authors:

Vincent St-Amour,

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt,

Matthias FelleisenAuthors Info & Claims

OOPSLA '12: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications

Pages 163 - 178

https://doi.org/10.1145/2384616.2384629

Published: 19 October 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Optimizing compilers map programs in high-level languages to high-performance target language code. To most programmers, such a compiler constitutes an impenetrable black box whose inner workings are beyond their understanding. Since programmers often must understand the workings of their compilers to achieve their desired performance goals, they typically resort to various forms of reverse engineering, such as examining compiled code or intermediate forms. Instead, optimizing compilers should engage programmers in a dialog. This paper introduces one such possible form of dialog: optimization coaching. An optimization coach watches while a program is compiled, analyzes the results, generates suggestions for enabling further compiler optimization in the source program, and presents a suitable synthesis of its results to the programmer. We present an evaluation based on case studies, which illustrate how an optimization coach can help programmers achieve optimizations resulting in substantial performance improvements.

References

[1]

Norman Adams, David Kranz, Richard Kelsey, Jonathan Rees, Paul Hudak, and James Philbin. ORBIT: an optimizing compiler for Scheme. In Proc. Symp. on Compiler Construction, 1986.

Digital Library

[2]

Erik Altman, Matthew Arnold, Stephen Fink, and Nick Mitchell. Performance analysis of idle programs. In Proc. Conf. Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 739--753, 2010.

Digital Library

[3]

Glenn Ammons, Jong-Deok Choi, Manish Gupta, and Nikhil Swamy. Finding and removing performance bottlenecks in large systems. In Proc. European Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, pp. 172--196, 2004.

[4]

Andrew Appel and Trevor Jim. Continuation-passing, closure-passing style. In Proc. Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 293--302, 1989.

Digital Library

[5]

David Binkley, Bruce Duncan, Brennan Jubb, and April Wielgosz. The FeedBack compiler. In Proc. International Works. on Program Comprehension, pp. 198--206, 1998.

Digital Library

[6]

John Clements, Matthew Flatt, and Matthias Felleisen. Modeling an algebraic stepper. In Proc. European Symp. on Programming, pp. 320--334, 2001.

Digital Library

[7]

Ryan Culpepper and Matthias Felleisen. Debugging hygienic macros. Science of Computer Programming 75(7), pp. 496--515, 2010.

Digital Library

[8]

Jeffrey Dean, David Grove, and Craig Chambers. Optimization of object-oriented programs using static class hierarchy analysis. In Proc. European Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, pp. 77--101, 1995.

Digital Library

[9]

Robert Bruce Findler, John Clements, Cormac Flanagan, Matthew Flatt, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Paul Steckler, and Matthias Felleisen. DrScheme: a programming environment for Scheme. J. of Functional Programming 12(2), pp. 159--182, 2002.

Digital Library

[10]

Cormac Flanagan, Matthew Flatt, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Stephanie Weirich, and Matthias Felleisen. Catching bugs in the web of program invariants. In Proc. Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 23--32, 1996.

Digital Library

[11]

Matthew Flatt and PLT. Reference: Racket. PLT Inc., PLT-TR-2010-1, 2010. http://racket-lang.org/tr1/

[12]

Agner Fog. Software optimization resources. 2012. http://www.agner.org/optimize/

[13]

Christopher W. Fraser and David R. Hanson. A Retargetable C Compiler: Design and Implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Digital Library

[14]

Saturnino Garcia, Donghwan Jeon, Chris Louie, and Michael Bed-ford Taylor. Kremlin: rethinking and rebooting gprof for the multicore age. In Proc. Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 458--469, 2011.

Digital Library

[15]

Brian Hackett and Shu-Yu Guo. Fast and precise type inference for JavaScript. In Proc. Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 239--250, 2012.

Digital Library

[16]

William von Hagen. The Definitive Guide to GCC. Apress, 2006.

[17]

Guoliang Jin, Linhai Song, Xiaoming Shi, Joel Scherpelz, and Shan Lu. Understanding and detecting real-world performance bugs. In Proc. Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 77--88, 2012.

Digital Library

[18]

Milan Jovic, Andrea Adamoli, and Matthias Hauswirth. Catch me of you can: performance bug detection in the wild. In Proc. Conf. Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 155--170, 2011.

Digital Library

[19]

Donald E. Knuth. An empirical study of FORTRAN programs. Software--Practice and Experience 1, pp. 105--133, 1971.

[20]

Xavier Leroy. Unboxed objects and polymorphic typing. In Proc. Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 177--188, 1992.

Digital Library

[21]

Peter A. W. Lewis, A. S. Goodman, and J. M. Miller. A pseudo-random number generator for the System/360. IBM Systems Journal 8(2), pp. 136--146, 1969.

Digital Library

[22]

Jennifer Lhoták, Ondrej Lhoták, and Laurie J. Hendren. Integrating the Soot compiler infrastructure into an IDE. In Proc. Symp. on Compiler Construction, pp. 281--297, 2004.

[23]

Stephen S. Muchnick. Advanced Compiler Design and Implementation. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1997.

Digital Library

[24]

Simon L Peyton Jones. Compiling Haskell by program transformation a report from the trenches. In Proc. European Symp. on Programming, pp. 18--44, 1996.

Digital Library

[25]

Feng Qian, Laurie J. Hendren, and Clark Verbrugge. A comprehensive approach to array bounds check elimination for Java. In Proc. Symp. on Compiler Construction, pp. 325--342, 2002.

Digital Library

[26]

Manuel Serrano. Inline expansion: when and how. In Proc. International Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, pp. 143--147, 1997.

Digital Library

[27]

Zhong Shao and Andrew Appel. A type-based compiler for standardML. In Proc. Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 116--129, 1995.

Digital Library

[28]

Jennifer Elizabeth Shaw. Visualisation Tools for Optimizing Compilers. MS dissertation, McGill University, 2005.

[29]

Vincent St. Amour, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, Matthew Flatt, and Matthias Felleisen. Typing the numeric tower. In Proc. International Symp. on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, pp. 289--303, 2012.

Digital Library

[30]

The Free Software Foundation. GCC 4.7.0 Manual. 2012.

[31]

The GHC Team. The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System User's Guide, Version 7.4.1. 2011.

[32]

The SBCL Team. SBCL 1.0.55 User Manual. 2012.

[33]

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt, Vincent St-Amour, Ryan Culpepper, Matthew Flatt, and Matthias Felleisen. Languages as libraries. In Proc. Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 132--141, 2011.

Digital Library

[34]

Raja Vallée-Rai, Etienne Gagnon, Laurie J. Hendren, Patrick Lam, Patrice Pominville, and Vijay Sundaresan. Optimizing Java bytecode using the Soot framework: is it feasible? In Proc. Symp. on Compiler Construction, pp. 18--34, 2000.

Digital Library

[35]

Michael Wolfe. Loop skewing: the wavefront method revisited. J. of Parallel Programming 15(4), pp. 279--293, 1986.

Digital Library

[36]

Nicholas C. Zakas. High Performance JavaScript. O'Reilly, 2010.

Digital Library

Cited By

Blumschein CNiephaus FStancu CWimmer CLincke JHirschfeld RChristakis MPradel M(2024)Finding Cuts in Static Analysis Graphs to Debloat SoftwareProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3650212.3680306(603-614)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650212.3680306
Gariano IRoberts RMarr SHomer MNoble JBonetta DLiu Y(2019)Which of my transient type checks are not (almost) free?Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Virtual Machines and Intermediate Languages10.1145/3358504.3361232(58-66)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3358504.3361232
Rosales ERosà ABinder W(2019)Optimization coaching for fork/join applications on the Java virtual machineCompanion Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming10.1145/3328433.3328441(1-3)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3328433.3328441
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Optimization coaching: optimizers learn to communicate with programmers
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software notations and tools
    1. Compilers

Recommendations

Optimization coaching: optimizers learn to communicate with programmers
OOPSLA '12

Optimizing compilers map programs in high-level languages to high-performance target language code. To most programmers, such a compiler constitutes an impenetrable black box whose inner workings are beyond their understanding. Since programmers often ...
Tailoring coaching strategies to users’ motivation in a multi-agent health coaching application
Abstract
Embodied conversational agents are often included in health behaviour change applications as intelligent virtual coaches. A major challenge in their development is tailoring coaching dialogues to user profiles. Agents should collect ...
Highlights
- Tailoring of coaching strategies is explored in a multi-agent application.
- ...
Coaching College Students to Thrive: Exploring Coaching Practices in Higher Education

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

OOPSLA '12: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications

October 2012

1052 pages

ISBN:9781450315616

DOI:10.1145/2384616

General Chair:
Gary T. Leavens
University of Central Florida
,
Program Chair:
Matthew B. Dwyer
University of Nebraska - Lincoln

ACM SIGPLAN Notices Volume 47, Issue 10
OOPSLA '12
October 2012
1011 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/2398857
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2012 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 October 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SPLASH '12

Sponsor:

SIGPLAN

SPLASH '12: Conference on Systems, Programming, and Applications: Software for Humanity

October 19 - 26, 2012

Arizona, Tucson, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,244 submissions, 22%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

64
Total Citations
View Citations
382
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)15
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Blumschein CNiephaus FStancu CWimmer CLincke JHirschfeld RChristakis MPradel M(2024)Finding Cuts in Static Analysis Graphs to Debloat SoftwareProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis10.1145/3650212.3680306(603-614)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650212.3680306
Gariano IRoberts RMarr SHomer MNoble JBonetta DLiu Y(2019)Which of my transient type checks are not (almost) free?Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Virtual Machines and Intermediate Languages10.1145/3358504.3361232(58-66)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3358504.3361232
Rosales ERosà ABinder W(2019)Optimization coaching for fork/join applications on the Java virtual machineCompanion Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming10.1145/3328433.3328441(1-3)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3328433.3328441
Castro DHu RJongmans SNg NYoshida N(2019)Distributed programming using role-parametric session types in go: statically-typed endpoint APIs for dynamically-instantiated communication structuresProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903423:POPL(1-30)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290342
Cohen NAksun DLarus J(2018)Object-oriented recovery for non-volatile memoryProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765232:OOPSLA(1-22)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276523
Burckhardt SCoppieters T(2018)Reactive caching for composed services: polling at the speed of pushProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765222:OOPSLA(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276522
Degenbaev UEisinger JHara KHlopko MLippautz MPayer H(2018)Cross-component garbage collectionProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765212:OOPSLA(1-24)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276521
Padhi SJain PPerelman DPolozov OGulwani SMillstein T(2018)FlashProfile: a framework for synthesizing data profilesProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765202:OOPSLA(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276520
Bornholt JTorlak E(2018)Finding code that explodes under symbolic evaluationProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32765192:OOPSLA(1-26)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3276519
Andersen LSt-Amour VVitek JFelleisen M(2018)Feature-Specific ProfilingACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems10.1145/327551941:1(1-34)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3275519
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents