ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A comparison of empirical and model-driven optimization
Full text pdf formatPdf (449 KB)
Source Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation archive
Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 2003 conference on Programming language design and implementation table of contents
San Diego, California, USA
SESSION: Code optimization I table of contents
Pages: 63 - 76  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-662-5
Also published in ...
Authors
Kamen Yotov  Cornell University
Xiaoming Li  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Gang Ren  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Cibulskis  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Gerald DeJong  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Maria Garzaran  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
David Padua  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Keshav Pingali  Cornell University
Paul Stodghill  Cornell University
Peng Wu  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 63,   Citation Count: 25
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/781131.781140
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Empirical program optimizers estimate the values of key optimization parameters by generating different program versions and running them on the actual hardware to determine which values give the best performance. In contrast, conventional compilers use models of programs and machines to choose these parameters. It is widely believed that model-driven optimization does not compete with empirical optimization, but few quantitative comparisons have been done to date. To make such a comparison, we replaced the empirical optimization engine in ATLAS (a system for generating a dense numerical linear algebra library called the BLAS) with a model-driven optimization engine that used detailed models to estimate values for optimization parameters, and then measured the relative performance of the two systems on three different hardware platforms. Our experiments show that model-driven optimization can be surprisingly effective, and can generate code whose performance is comparable to that of code generated by empirical optimizers for the BLAS.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
3
4
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
M. Frigo and S. G. Johnson. FFTW: An adaptive software architecture for the FFT. In proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), volume 3, pages 1381--1384, 1998
 
9
 
10
T. Kisuki, P. M. W. Knijnenburg, M. F. P. O'Boyle, and H. A. G. Wijshoff . Iterative compilation in program optimization. In proceedings of Compilers for Parallel Computers, pages (CPC), pages 35--44, 2000
 
11
12
 
13
R. L. Mattson, J. Gecsei, D. R. Slutz, and I. L. Traiger. Evaluation techniques for storage hierarchies. IBM Systems Journal 9, 2, 78--117, 1970
14
15
16
 
17
J. Ramanujam and P. Sadayappan, Tiling multidimensional iteration spaces for multicomputers, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 16(2):108--120, 1992
 
18
 
19
 
20
21

CITED BY  25
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Collaborative Colleagues:
Kamen Yotov: colleagues
Xiaoming Li: colleagues
Gang Ren: colleagues
Michael Cibulskis: colleagues
Gerald DeJong: colleagues
Maria Garzaran: colleagues
David Padua: colleagues
Keshav Pingali: colleagues
Paul Stodghill: colleagues
Peng Wu: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: