arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2205.03590

Can We Run in Parallel? Automating Loop Parallelization for TornadoVM

Abstract

With the advent of multi-core systems, GPUs and FPGAs, loop parallelization has become a promising way to speed-up program execution. In order to stay up with time, various performance-oriented programming languages provide a multitude of constructs to allow programmers to write parallelizable loops. Correspondingly, researchers have developed techniques to automatically parallelize loops that do not carry dependences across iterations, and/or call pure functions. However, in managed languages with platform-independent runtimes such as Java, it is practically infeasible to perform complex dependence analysis during JIT compilation. In this paper, we propose AutoTornado, a first of its kind static+JIT loop parallelizer for Java programs that parallelizes loops for heterogeneous architectures using TornadoVM (a Graal-based VM that supports insertion of @Parallel constructs for loop parallelization). AutoTornado performs sophisticated dependence and purity analysis of Java programs statically, in the Soot framework, to generate constraints encoding conditions under which a given loop can be parallelized. The generated constraints are then fed to the Z3 theorem prover (which we have integrated with Soot) to annotate canonical for loops that can be parallelized using the @Parallel construct. We have also added runtime support in TornadoVM to use static analysis results for loop parallelization. Our evaluation over several standard parallelization kernels shows that AutoTornado correctly parallelizes 61.3% of manually parallelizable loops, with an efficient static analysis and a near-zero runtime overhead. To the best of our knowledge, AutoTornado is not only the first tool that performs program-analysis based parallelization for a real-world JVM, but also the first to integrate Z3 with Soot for loop parallelization.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rishi Sharma, Shreyansh Kulshreshtha, Manas Thakur. 2022-05-07. Can We Run in Parallel? Automating Loop Parallelization for TornadoVM. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.03590

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

UnsafeChecker: Finding Soundness Bugs in Rust Safe Abstractions

Rust guarantees memory safety without garbage collection through a strict ownership and borrowing system. However, for low-level systems programming, many widely used libraries rely on the unsafe keyword. These libraries encapsulate raw-pointer operations behind safe APIs to form safe abstractions. A single mistake in this internal unsafe code can break its safety contract, rendering the abstraction unsound and allowing safe clients to trigger undefined behavior. Detecting these potential soundness violations is challenging. Existing static analysis tools for C/C++ ignore Rust-specific safety contracts, while current Rust tools lack the deep semantic modeling required to track the contexts that raw pointers erase. To address this gap, we present UnsafeChecker, a compiler-integrated static analysis framework for detecting potential soundness violations in Rust safe abstractions. UnsafeChecker analyzes Rust MIR using a flow-sensitive abstract interpretation that maintains a shared state with three components: ownership, object validity, and layout. Each warning rule consumes the subset of facts needed for the corresponding Rust safety obligation. UnsafeChecker reports both instruction-level undefined behavior and boundary-level contract violations that may escape through safe APIs. We evaluate UnsafeChecker on a benchmark of 46 RustSec vulnerabilities, which contain 53 ground-truth bugs. UnsafeChecker outperforms several state-of-the-art tools, detecting 32 CVEs and covering 36 bugs (67.9% recall) with 51.6% alert-level precision. Furthermore, in a large-scale scan of real-world crates on crates.io, UnsafeChecker uncovered 114 previously unknown bugs across 83 crates, with 45 confirmed and 27 already fixed by maintainers.

cs.PL

Mapping Dynamic, Hierarchical Quantum Circuits

Qubit mapping is a critical pass in quantum compilation. Despite various advances, dynamic circuits, those exhibiting data dependent control-flow, often resulting from qubit measurements, are not yet supported by the vast majority of available qubit mappers. The crucial limitation to overcome is the dependence on flat, one-dimensional representations of circuits. Further, qubit mappers currently lack compiler abstractions that capture the hierarchical nature of circuits, hindering the qubit mapping process. In this paper, 1 we introduce a new qubit mapping method and analyses to tackle hierarchical dynamic circuits. Our novelty resides in four key aspects: modeling (statically) sub-circuits in disjoint control-flow paths, introducing a novel Qubit Reconciliation pass to maintain consistency between sub-circuit and control-flow boundaries, a loop-entry remapping pass, and a refined cost function enhanced for SWAP count, circuit depth, circuit latency and error. We demonstrate the efficiency of our approach on a wide range of dynamic circuits on two monolithic Quantum Processing Units of 127 and 156 qubits, and on chiplet hexagon-based QPUs. On monolithic QPUs, our qubit mapper improves the SWAP count by up to 52%, depth by up to 18%, latency by up to 18.6%, and error by up to 40%. On chiplet architectures, we achieve improvements of up to 36% on SWAP count, 8.7% on depth, 15% on latency, and 15% of error.

cs.PL

Erased Postulates, Identity Types and Quotients

This text is concerned with the question of whether, in type theory with erasure annotations, one can postulate that some type is inhabited and still have a guarantee that a program will not get stuck. Previous work has provided such guarantees for consistent erased postulates, i.e. postulates that are restricted to be used in erased contexts. Here those guarantees are extended to type theory with identity types. Similar ideas provide a simple way to support quotient types: it is shown that one can let things like "the equivalence classes for two related values are equal" be erased postulates and have an eliminator that only computes for the equivalence class constructor, and still get a guarantee that programs will compute correctly. Another question is whether programs compute correctly if one is allowed to transport (cast) using erased identity proofs. It is shown that this is safe in the absence of quotients and postulates, and in the presence of quotients and erased postulates that can be implemented using equality reflection. However, unrestricted transports of this kind are not compatible with erased, postulated univalence. For that reason the text includes a study of the function []-cong, which encapsulates a limited form of transport for erased identity proofs. The text is accompanied by machine-checked Agda proofs.

cs.PL