skip to main content
10.1145/1480881.1480898acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespoplConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SPEED: precise and efficient static estimation of program computational complexity

Published:21 January 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes an inter-procedural technique for computing symbolic bounds on the number of statements a procedure executes in terms of its scalar inputs and user-defined quantitative functions of input data-structures. Such computational complexity bounds for even simple programs are usually disjunctive, non-linear, and involve numerical properties of heaps. We address the challenges of generating these bounds using two novel ideas.

We introduce a proof methodology based on multiple counter instrumentation (each counter can be initialized and incremented at potentially multiple program locations) that allows a given linear invariant generation tool to compute linear bounds individually on these counter variables. The bounds on these counters are then composed together to generate total bounds that are non-linear and disjunctive. We also give an algorithm for automating this proof methodology. Our algorithm generates complexity bounds that are usually precise not only in terms of the computational complexity, but also in terms of the constant factors.

Next, we introduce the notion of user-defined quantitative functions that can be associated with abstract data-structures, e.g., length of a list, height of a tree, etc. We show how to compute bounds in terms of these quantitative functions using a linear invariant generation tool that has support for handling uninterpreted functions. We show application of this methodology to commonly used data-structures (namely lists, list of lists, trees, bit-vectors) using examples from Microsoft product code. We observe that a few quantitative functions for each data-structure are usually sufficient to allow generation of symbolic complexity bounds of a variety of loops that iterate over these data-structures, and that it is straightforward to define these quantitative functions.

The combination of these techniques enables generation of precise computational complexity bounds for real-world examples (drawn from Microsoft product code and C++ STL library code) for some of which it is non-trivial to even prove termination. Such automatically generated bounds are very useful for early detection of egregious performance problems in large modular codebases that are constantly being changed by multiple developers who make heavy use of code written by others without a good understanding of their implementation complexity.

References

  1. J. Berdine, A. Chawdhary, B. Cook, D. Distefano, and P. O'Hearn. Variance analyses from invariance analyses. In POPL, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Beyer, T. Henzinger, R. Majumdar, and A. Rybalchenko. Invariant synthesis for combined theories. In VMCAI'07, pages 378--394. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Bouajjani, M. Bozga, P. Habermehl, R. Iosif, P. Moro, and T. Vojnar. Programs with lists are counter automata. In CAV, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. R. Bradley, Z. Manna, and H. B. Sipma. The polyranking principle. In ICALP, pages 1349--1361, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. R. Bradley, Z. Manna, and H. B. Sipma. Termination analysis of integer linear loops. In CONCUR, pages 488--502, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Cook, A. Podelski, and A. Rybalchenko. Termination proofs for systems code. In PLDI, pages 415--426, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Cousot and N. Halbwachs. Automatic Discovery of Linear Restraints among Variables of a Program. In POPL, 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K. Crary and S. Weirich. Resource bound certification. In POPL, pages 184--198, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. A. Danielsson. Lightweight semiformal time complexity analysis for purely functional data structures. In POPL, pages 133--144, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Dor, M. Rodeh, and M. Sagiv. CSSV: towards a realistic tool for statically detecting all buffer overflows in C. In PLDI, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Goldsmith, A. Aiken, and D. S. Wilkerson. Measuring empirical computational complexity. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. S. Gulavani and S. Gulwani. A numerical abstract domain based on expression abstraction and max operator with application in timing analysis. In CAV, pages 370--384, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Gulwani, krishna Mehra, and T. Chilimbi. Speed: Precise and efficient static estimation of program computational complexity. Technical Report MSR-TR-2008-95, Microsoft Research, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Gulwani, T. Lev-Ami, and M. Sagiv. A combination framework for tracking partition sizes. In POPL, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Gulwani and G. C. Necula. A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Global Value Numbering. In SAS, pages 212--227, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. S. Gulwani and A. Tiwari. Combining Abstract Interpreters. In PLDI, pages 376--386, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Gustafsson, A. Ermedahl, C. Sandberg, and B. Lisper. Automatic derivation of loop bounds and infeasible paths for wcet analysis using abstract execution. In RTSS, pages 57--66, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. N. Halbwachs, Y.-E. Proy, and P. Roumanoff. Verification of real-time systems using linear relation analysis. FMSD, 11(2), '97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. A. Healy, M. Sjodin, V. Rustagi, D. B. Whalley, and R. van Engelen. Supporting timing analysis by automatic bounding of loop iterations. Real-Time Systems, 18(2/3):129--156, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Hofmann and S. Jost. Static prediction of heap space usage for first-order functional programs. In POPL, pages 185--197, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Hughes and L. Pareto. Recursion and Dynamic Data-structures in bounded space: Towards Embedded ML Programming. In ICFP, '99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. R. M. Leino and P. Müller. Object invariants in dynamic contexts. In ECOOP, volume 3086 of LNCS, pages 491--516, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. Magill, J. Berdine, E. M. Clarke, and B. Cook. Arithmetic strengthening for shape analysis. In SAS, pages 419--436, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. L. Métayer. Ace: An Automatic Complexity Evaluator. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 10(2):248--266, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Navas, E. Mera, P. López-Garcıa, and M. V. Hermenegildo. User-definable resource bounds analysis for logic programs. In ICLP, pages 348--363, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Microsoft Phoenix Compiler Infrastructure, http://research.microsoft.com/phoenix/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. A. Podelski and A. Rybalchenko. Transition invariants. In LICS, pages 32--41. IEEE, July 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Rosendahl. Automatic Complexity Analysis. In FPCA, pages 144--156, New York, NY, USA, 1989. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Wilhelm, J. Engblom, A. Ermedahl, N. Holsti, S. Thesing, D. Whalley, G. Bernat, C. Ferdinand, R. Heckmann, F. Mueller, I. Puaut, P. Puschner, J. Staschulat, and P. Stenström. The Determination of Worst-Case Execution Times-Overview of the Methods and Survey of Tools. In ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. R. Wilhelm and B. Wachter. Abstract interpretation with applications to timing validation. In CAV, pages 22--36, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SPEED: precise and efficient static estimation of program computational complexity

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

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

              Sign in

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader
              About Cookies On This Site

              We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

              Learn more

              Got it!