Splitting Algorithm

This guide gives an overview of the algorithm used in the implementation of Truffle call target splitting.

The new implementation relies on the language implementations providing information on when a particular node turns polymorphic or increases its “degree” of polymorphism by, for example, adding an entry into an inline cache. This event is called a “polymorphic specialize”. This information is provided to the runtime by calling the Node.reportPolymorphicSpecialize method after the specialization is complete.

This guide explains what happens after the call to reportPolymorphicSpecialize. You can find more information on how to correctly report polymorphic specializations in the Reporting Polymorphism guide.

Approach #

Detecting of suitable splitting candidates relies on the languages reporting polymorphic specializations. Once the specialization is reported, you can assume that the polymorphism is coming from somewhere in the caller chain of the call target hosting the newly polymorphic node, and that by splitting the right call target (or call targets) you can return this node to a monomorphic state.

You then identify the call targets for which the splitting could result in monomorphization and mark them as “needs split”. During further execution, if the interpreter is about to execute a direct call to a call target that is marked as “needs split”, that call target will be split (provided there are no outstanding factors preventing it such as the root node not being allowed to be split, the AST being too big, etc.). This results in a new call target with a clean profile (i.e., all its nodes are returned to an uninitialized state) to be re-profiled specifically for this call site, since it is the only call site calling this new call target.

Following recursive algorithm (expressed as pseudo code) is a simplified version of the approach used to decide which call targets need to be marked “needs split”. This algorithm is applied to every call target once one of its nodes reports a polymorphic specialization. The full implementation can be found in org.graalvm.compiler.truffle.runtime.OptimizedCallTarget#maybeSetNeedsSplit.

setNeedsSplit(callTarget)
    if callTarget.needsSplit
        return false
    if sizeof(knownCallers(callTarget)) == 0
        return false
    if callCount(callTarget) == 1
        return false

    if sizeof(knownCallers(callTarget)) > 1
        callTarget.needsSplit = true
    else
        callTarget.needsSplit = setNeedsSplit(caller(callTarget))

    return callTarget.needsSplit

At the very beginning of the pseudo code you can have early termination conditions. If the call target is already marked as “needs split”, there is need to continue. Also, if the call targets has no known callers (e.g., it is the “main” of the execution) splitting is not applicable since splitting is inherently tied to duplicating ASTs for a particular call site. Finally, if this is happening during the first execution of call target, splitting is pointless since the polymorphic nature of the node is inevitable (i.e., not coming from the callers, but rather an integral property of that call target).

In the second part of the pseudo code two cases are differentiated:

1) The call target has multiple known callers - in this case you can assume that the polymorphism is coming from one of these multiple callers. Thus, you mark the call target as “needs split”.

2) The call target has only one known caller - in this case you know that marking this call target as “needs split” cannot help remove the polymorphism. But, the polymorphism could be coming into this call target from its sole caller, which could have multiple callers and could be a candidate for splitting. Thus, you recursively apply the algorithm to the caller of our call target.

Ignore for now the return value of our algorithm and its usage, and consider the following SimpleLanguage example to illustrate why this distinction between one and multiple callers is needed:

function add(arg1, arg2) {
    return arg1 + arg2;
}

function double(arg1) {
    return add(arg1, arg1);
}

function callsDouble() {
    double(1);
    double("foo");
}

function main() {
    i = 0;
    while (i < 1000) {
        callsDouble();
    }
}

In this example, the node representing + in the add function will turn polymorphic once double is called with the string argument "foo" and this will be reported to the runtime and our algorithm will be applied to add. All of the early return checks will fail (add is not marked “needs split”, it has known callers and this is not its first execution). Observe that add has only one caller (double), so you apply the algorithm to double. Early returns all fail, and since double has multiple callers, you mark it as “needs split” and on later iterations calls to double are split resulting in the following code representation of the run time state:

function add(arg1, arg2) {
    return arg1 + arg2; // + is polymorphic
}

function double(arg1) {
    return add(arg1, arg1);
}

function doubleSplit1(arg1) {
    return add(arg1, arg1);
}

function doubleSplit2(arg1) {
    return add(arg1, arg1);
}

function callsDouble() {
    doubleSplit1(1);
    doubleSplit2("foo");
}

function main() {
    i = 0;
    while (i < 1000) {
        callsDouble();
    }
}

As you can see, the source of the polymorphism was split, but that did not solve the issue, since both slits still call the same add function and the polymorphism remains. This is where the algorithms return value comes in to play. If the algorithm was successful in finding a target to mark than all the transitive callee’s of that target need to be marked “needs split” as well. With this final step in place, the final run time result of our splitting approach for the previous example can be represent as the following source code:

function add(arg1, arg2) {
    return arg1 + arg2; // + is polymorphic
}

function addSplit1(arg1, arg2) {
    return arg1 + arg2;

}
function addSplit2(arg1, arg2) {
    return arg1 + arg2;
}

function double(arg1) {
    return add(arg1, arg1);
}

function doubleSplit1(arg1) {
    return addSplit1(arg1, arg1);
}

function doubleSplit2(arg1) {
    return addSplit2(arg1, arg1);
}

function callsDouble() {
    doubleSplit1(1);
    doubleSplit2("foo");
}

function main() {
    i = 0;
    while (i < 1000) {
        callsDouble();
    }
}

Final note to observe at this point is that the splitting does not remove the original call targets, and that they still have polymorphism in their profiles. Thus, even if new calls to these call targets are created, they will also be split. Consider if the main of the previous example looked as follows.

function main() {
    i = 0;
    while (i < 1000) {
        callsDouble();
    }
    add(1,2); // this line was added
}

Once the execution reaches the newly added line you do not want it to call the add function with the polymorphic + since the arguments here do not merit the polymorphism. Luckily, since add was already marked as “needs split”, it will remain so during the entire execution, and this final call to add with cause another split of the add functions.

Splitting Algorithm

Approach #

Connect with us