Type Hierarchies and Guards in Truffle Languages

Continuing a little bit with writing notes on Truffle and Graal, this one is based on my observations in SOMns and changes to its message dispatch mechanism. Specifically, I refactored the main message dispatch chain in SOMns. As in Self and Newspeak, all interactions with objects are message sends. Thus, field access and method invocation is essentially the same. This means that message sending is a key to good performance.

In my previous design, I structured the dispatch chain in a way that, I thought, I'd reduce the necessary runtime checks. This design decision still came from TruffleSOM where the class hierarchy was much simpler and it still seems to work.

My naive design distinguished two different cases. One case is that the receiver is a standard Java objects, for instance boxed primitives such as longs and doubles, or other Java objects that is used directly. The second case is objects from my own hierarchy of Smalltalk objects under SAbstractObject.

The hierarchy is a little more involved, it includes the abstract class, a class for objects that have a Smalltalk class SObjectWithClass, a class for objects without fields, for objects with fields, and that one is then again subclassed by classes for mutable and immutable objects. There are still a few more details to it, but I think you get the idea.

So, with that, I thought, let's structure the dispatch chain like this, starting with a message send node as its root:

  -> JavaRcvr
  -> JavaRcvr
  -> CheckIsSOMObject
        \-> UninitializedJavaRcvr
  -> SOMRcvr
  -> SOMRcvr
  -> UninitializedSOMRcvr

This represents a dispatch chain for a message send site that has seen four different receivers, two primitive types, and two Smalltalk types. This could be the case for instance for the polymorphic + message.

The main idea was to split the chain in two parts so that I avoid checking for the SOM object more than once, and then can just cast the receiver to SObjectWithClass in the second part of the chain to be able to read the Smalltalk class from it.

Now it turns out, this is not the best idea. The main problem is that SObjectWithClass is not a leaf class in my SOMns hierarchy (this is the case in TruffleSOM though, where it originates). This means, at runtime, the check, i.e., the guard for SObjectWithClass can be expensive. When I looked at the compilation in IGV, I saw many instanceof checks that could not be removed and resulted in runtime traversal of the class hierarchy, to confirm that a specific concrete class was indeed a subclass of SObjectWithClass.

In order to avoid these expensive checks, I refactored the dispatch nodes to extract the guard into its own node that does only the minimal amount of work for each specific case. And it only ever checks for the specific leaf class of my hierarchy that is expected for a specific receiver.

This also means, the new dispatch chain is not separated in parts anymore as it was before. Instead, the nodes are simply added in the order in which the different receiver types are observed over time.

Overall the performance impact is rather large. I saw on the Richards benchmark a gain of 10% and on DeltaBlue about 20%. Unfortunately my refactoring also changed a few other details beside the changes related to instanceof and casts. It also made the guards for objects with fields depend on the object layout instead of the class, which avoids having multiple guards for essentially the same constraint further down the road.

So, the main take-away here is that the choice of guard types can have a major performance impact. I also had a couple of other @Specialization nodes that were using non-leaf classes. For instance like this: @Specialization public Object doSOMObject(SObjectWithClass rcvr) {...}

This looks inconspicuous at first, but fixing those and a few other things resulted in overall runtime reduction on multiple benchmarks between 20% and 30%.

A good way to find these issues is to see in IGV that instanceof or checked cast snippets are inlined and not completely removed. Often they are already visible in the list of phases when the snippets are resolved. Another way to identify them is the use of the Graal option -Dgraal.option.TraceTrufflePerformanceWarnings=true (I guess that would be -G:+TraceTrufflePerformanceWarnings when mx is used). The output names the specific non-leaf node checks that have been found in the graph. Not all of them are critical, because they can be removed by later phases. To check that, you can use the id of the node from the output and search for it in the corresponding IGV graph using for instance id=3235 in the search field.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.