Building efficient and highly run-time adaptable virtual machines

Abstract

Programming language virtual machines (VMs) realize language semantics, enforce security properties, and execute applications efficiently. Fully Reflective Execution Environments (EEs) are VMs that additionally expose their whole structure and behavior to applications. This enables develop- ers to observe and adapt VMs at run time. However, there is a belief that reflective EEs are not viable for practical usages because such flexibility would incur a high performance overhead. To refute this belief, we built a reflective EE on top of a highly optimizing dynamic compiler. We introduced a new optimization model that, based on the conjecture that variability of low-level (EE-level) reflective behavior is low in many scenarios, mitigates the most significant sources of the performance overheads related to the reflective capabilities in the EE. Our experiments indicate that reflective EEs can reach peak performance in the order of standard VMs. Concretely, that a) if reflective mechanisms are not used the execution overhead is negligible compared to standard VMs, b) VM operations can be redefined at language-level without incurring in significant overheads, c) for several software adaptation tasks, applying the reflection at the VM level is not only lightweight in terms of engineering effort, but also competitive in terms of performance in comparison to other ad-hoc solutions.

References

1. Bridging the Gap between Machine and Language using First-Class Building Blocks. PhD thesis, University of Bern, 2012.
2. J.-B. Arnaud, M. Denker, S. Ducasse, D. Pollet, A. Bergel, and M. Suen. Read-only execution for dynamic languages. In TOOLS, pages 117–136. Springer, 2010.
3. K. Asai. Compiling a reflective language using metaocaml. In GPCE, pages 113–122. ACM, 2014.
4. C. Chambers, D. Ungar, and E. Lee. An efficient implementation of self a dynamically-typed object-oriented language based on prototypes. In OOPSLA, pages 49–70. ACM, October 1989.
5. G. Chari, D. Garbervetsky, S. Marr, and S. Ducasse. Towards fully reflective environments. In Onward! ACM, 2015.
6. L. P. Deutsch and A. M. Schiffman. Efficient implementation of the Smalltalk-80 system. In POPL, Jan. 1984.
7. Z. DeVito, D. Ritchie, M. Fisher, A. Aiken, and P. Hanrahan. First-class runtime generation of high-performance types using exotypes. In PLDI, pages 77–88. ACM, 2014.
8. A. Goldberg and D. Robson. Smalltalk-80: the language and its implementation. Addison-Wesley, 1983.
9. M. Haupt, R. Hirschfeld, T. Pape, G. Gabrysiak, S. Marr, A. Bergmann, A. Heise, M. Kleine, and R. Krahn. The som family: Virtual machines for teaching and research. In ITiCSE, pages 18–22. ACM, 2010.
10. U. Hölzle, C. Chambers, and D. Ungar. Optimizing dynamically-typed object-oriented languages with polymorphic inline caches. In ECOOP, pages 21–38. Springer, 1991.
11. G. Kiczales and J. D. Rivieres. The Art of the Metaobject Protocol. MIT Press, 1991.
12. S. Marr and S. Ducasse. Tracing vs. partial evaluation: Comparing meta-compilation approaches for self-optimizing interpreters. In OOPSLA, pages 821–839. ACM, 2015.
13. S. Marr, T. Pape, and W. De Meuter. Are We There Yet? Simple Language Implementation Techniques for the 21st Century. IEEE Software, 31(5):60–67, 2014.
14. S. Marr, C. Seaton, and S. Ducasse. Zero-Overhead Metaprogramming: Reflection and Metaobject Protocols Fast and Without Compromises. In PLDI, pages 545–554. ACM, 2015.
15. D. Rothlisberger, M. Harry, A. Villazon, D. Ansaloni, W. Binder, O. Nierstrasz, and P. Moret. Augmenting static source views in ides with dynamic metrics. In ICSM ’09, pages 253–262, Sept 2009.
16. G. Salvaneschi, C. Ghezzi, and M. Pradella. An analysis of language-level support for self-adaptive software. TAAS, 8(2):7, 2013.
17. C. Seaton, M. L. Van De Vanter, and M. Haupt. Debugging at full speed. In DLYA, pages 1–13. ACM, 2014.
18. A. Shali and W. R. Cook. Hybrid partial evaluation. In OOPSLA, pages 375–390. ACM, 2011.
19. D. Simon, C. Wimmer, B. Urban, G. Duboscq, L. Stadler, and T. Würthinger. Snippets: Taking the High Road to a Low Level. ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim., 12(2):20:1–20:25, June 2015.
20. D. Ungar, A. Spitz, and A. Ausch. Constructing a metacircular virtual machine in an exploratory programming environment. In OOPSLA, pages 11–20. ACM, 2005.
21. T. Verwaest, C. Bruni, D. Gurtner, A. Lienhard, and O. Niestrasz. Pinocchio: Bringing reflection to life with first-class interpreters. In OOPSLA, pages 774–789. ACM, 2010.
22. E. Wernli, O. Nierstrasz, C. Teruel, and S. Ducasse. Delegation proxies: The power of propagation. In Modularity, pages 1–12. ACM, 2014.
23. A. Wöß, C. Wirth, D. Bonetta, C. Seaton, C. Humer, and H. Mössenböck. An object storage model for the truffle language implementation framework. In PPPJ, pages 133– 144. ACM, 2014.
24. T. Würthinger, C. Wimmer, A. Wöß, L. Stadler, G. Duboscq, C. Humer, G. Richards, D. Simon, and M. Wolczko. One vm to rule them all. In Onward!, pages 187–204. ACM, 2013.
25. T. Würthinger, A. Wöß, L. Stadler, G. Duboscq, D. Simon, and C. Wimmer. Self-optimizing ast interpreters. In DLS, pages 73–82. ACM, 2012.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools

    • Compilers