| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
examples/json_tree.aup: a variant, lists in records, match, appends into a field's list, number(t)) and walked for a digest, against Python's reading: JSONTestSuite's 95 y_ taken alike, no n_ taken, 6 i_ taken; 300 random nested documents alike; in make check (module_specs, the suite and 100 random documents, three paths); 167 lines against the same design's 133 in Python (the bar missed: the type declarations), 40 times cJSON's time and 1.3 times plain Python's (556 ns a byte, 525 instructions); json_tree.py, json_tree_time.c (cJSON linked, digests compared first)
|
| |
|
|
| |
of type LIST (its items' record in its default) holds a list the event made, its number an i64 in the cell (0 an empty one), so lists keep their inside, batches and the JIT as they were (the JIT's append fast path leaves such records alone); LIST_VALUE (a copy of an event's list, nothing made for an empty one), LIST_BIND (a register, an event's list flagged PURE_LIST_BOUND, read and walked, never changed by code), APPEND_IN (an item into the list in a field of an event's list's item, copied first when another value shares it or a register is bound to it), sharing counted where cells take them; such records only in event lists (no stored, transient or message list, no key); the event's lists go as each event or view's body begins, registers given back their own; record field names may be paths (at.x: records in records, flattened by aup); NUM_PARSE (a text written as a JSON number, its nearest double, core's pure_parse_number); unit tests (values copied, shared then appended, a bound register seeing what it was bound to, three events alike, 6 refused; under ASan and UBSan too, which found the record kinds' missing LIST)
|
| |
|
|
| |
executor alone within 0.14% of stage 1, the bank's queries +0.28% to +0.80% where they hold still and +0.17% to +0.45% on average where they do not (four runs each; bar 1%): step's four cases more, not the held slots emptied each event (left to modules that hold some, the counts the same)
|
| |
|
|
| |
examples/json.aup, 80 lines against the same design's 90 in Python): JSONTestSuite's 95 y_ cases taken and 188 n_ refused, 21 of the 35 i_ taken, the three paths alike, in make check (module_specs, the 316 small cases in tests/specs/json under their MIT license, the two large ones made and hashed); 116 times C's time and 1.2 times plain Python's (299 ns a byte, 339 instructions); && and || made to decide alone (writing it, i < n && d[i] read past the end) with AND and OR kept where the right side cannot fail, every other module byte for byte the same; SHA-256 again with formats and joined bytes, 42 lines and 159 times C
|
| |
|
|
| |
before c, whole positions inside, numbers or i64s), BYTE (one byte of an i64 0-255), BYTES_LOAD and BYTES_STORE (an event's 32 values held by name, 0-15 bytes and 16-31 texts so a text's hold UTF-8 alone, emptied as an event or a view's body begins, appended to in place, counted in the room: MEMORY past it), CONCAT of bytes, NUM_TEXT in a format (a width padded with spaces or with zeros after the sign, d x X b o of an i64 or a whole number, f with 0-30 digits; -0 as 0), a reply of a held value kept by value, LEN wherever a value is read (it had been for handlers alone); pure-run's message NAME @PATH (the file's bytes, of any size); unit tests (16 formats, 9 slices, held values set, appended, set to a part of themselves, emptied each event, a doubling stopped by the room, a reply kept, 7 refused)
|
| |
|
|
| |
byte the same, the executor alone moved matmul +0.43% and BFS -0.34% (knapsack, roots, join within 0.03%; the bar of 0.1% missed, mixed signs: four cases more in step), the bank's queries -0.22% to 0.00% (bar 1%); the four cases out of line in a noinline function (b23) cost 6-15% of the executor's instructions (a call taking frame from step: the register cliff) and were taken back; CHECKPOINT's direction row through 027's stage 1
|
| |
|
|
| |
examples/sha256.aup) right for FIPS 180-2's examples and 138 more messages on every path, in make check against hashlib; 52 lines against Python's 28 (the bar missed: no formatting, no bytes joined or sliced, no lists as values, moved into stage 2), 176 times C's time and 0.43 of plain Python's (1,591 ns a byte; a block's 19,129 instructions, 39% of them the inlined fn's literals not folded); 044's check, time.c against the same algorithm in C (digests compared first) and the Python reference
|
| |
|
|
| |
xor, a left shift as a times 2^b failing as overflow past the range, a right shift as floor(a / 2^b), a count outside 0-63 failing as limit: integers in two's complement without end), BYTE_AT (the byte of any bytes value at a whole position, a number or an i64, else limit), BYTES_OF (a list of one i64 field as bytes, a value outside 0-255 failing as limit) and INDEX_AT (a list's item at a position, not_found where there is none); the fold-shape and batch analyses count their arity and the lists they read; unit tests of the ends (27 bit cases, 11 reads of a constant's and a text state's bytes, 7 refused)
|
| |
|
|
| |
typed value built of bool, i64, number, bytes (text the UTF-8 ones), records, variants and lists of anything (an unkeyed list keyed by position), anchors for cursors and indexes; functions that may recur and while, ending by the budget as EVM's gas (the module the unit of determinism); bit operations on integers as infinite two's complement within i64; folds left folds in meaning, reordered by the implementation only for the same answer; meaning apart from representation; answers to 026's suspects; five stages (bytes, bits and lists of numbers for SHA-256; nesting, variants, recursion and characters for JSON; nested state stored; patterns gathered; the number model) with bars
|
| |
|
|
| |
inflate, JSON, UTF-8 and line breaking, relational queries and graphs, text editing, box layout, HTTP/1.1 by packets, retries and timeouts, constant-time crypto) with five criteria (written in aup and Pure alone, no workaround, lines against a Python reference, time against C, the spec's own vectors passing in Pure's checks on three machines); ten probes (044) show today's aup stops at a byte by position, bit operations, nesting, recursion, variants and reading a character; the core's minimal candidates and the rule against piling up (only what two specs need); SHA-256 and JSON first
|
| |
|
|
| |
1.0: an event a total, atomic, deterministic function step(S, E) -> (S, Out*) or a fault (budgets in instructions and bytes), time an input, views pure functions of the committed snapshot, the history seen a prefix of commits, delivery in order and once with the transport's state in the store, values the same on every path, replacement joined by names; the layers it removes; its own suspects (input and view kinds, cursors and indexes, keyed documents, the number model, the budget's unit, fixed limits); the computation language rebuilt before 1.0, no compatibility kept before it (the user's word)
|
| |
|
|
| |
spare_count they moved its large arrays and knapsack ran 7% slower at the same instructions (8.79 against 8.29 ms), at its end about 2% (8.45); research 139's afterword: 026 not taken heavily (the user's word), the one light cut made (a nested count loop's rounds sweeping only when few lanes are left: matmul 25.85 to 24.3 ms), the walk loops kept sweeping each round (held, BFS's batches ran out), and the stop; 041 runs of b21
|
| |
|
|
| |
deciding prototype 043): the executor's extra over 041 is interpretation, not semantics (matmul 11.1 ms of it, checks 0.2); the program interpreted a step at a time, with the executor's checks, ran matmul's loop in 10.36 ms and knapsack's in 4.16 (straight kernels 7.17 and 3.76; the executor about 22.2 and 7.3), about 14 and 5.4 ms with the making (bars 15 and 6.5; the compiled code 14.2 and 7.9); the buffer rule it found (registers at load, two buffers each so a result never lands on its operand, 24 lanes apart); the suite's five bodies sorted (matmul, knapsack, join's order loop straight-line; roots and BFS not); 026's scope as straight-line programs with the pass for the rest, and its risk
|
| |
|
|
| |
a load would make, interpreted a step at a time (scalar steps by the executor's rules, kernel steps over four-byte lane registers fixed at load with two buffers each, a list's cells once a batch, a deferred set after its distance check), against the same kernels called straight and natural.h's C: matmul 10.36 ms (straight 7.17; the executor's 25.8 with 3.6 of making), knapsack 4.16 (straight 3.76; the executor's 8.19); 139's question, bars and b20's split (matmul's 11.1 ms of interpretation, knapsack's 1.9)
|
| |
|
|
| |
at once in integers (join 116.0 to 110.5 ms, short of 108: what is left is the same cells' memory, read, add and write again), decide's bit found once (BFS 23.2, short of 21.5: the tail's time was its loads more than its instructions), and the batch executor's loops aligned to 64-byte lines (the hot loops' placement had swung knapsack 6% at the same instructions; the lists' loops aligned too cost the bank's queries 1-2% more instructions, so not they); against b9 matmul -36%, knapsack -28%, roots -7.6%, join -6.2%, BFS -3.9%, the executor alone, the bank queries and TPC-C (+0.7%) as they were; 025's bars and what each stage measured; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
5.7 ms of 24.1 (decide, keep_filtered, apply_filters and the list side), halved 21.5 ms; join's sums into cells about 17 ns a round, a chain through the same cells, in four-byte integers with the width once a batch about 5 ns, 108 ms; neither moves BFS from about 2.7x the compiled code, and join's recurrence (about 40 ms) stays outside
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
comparisons counting their lanes): knapsack 10.07 to 8.25 ms (bar 8.6; b9 11.46, the compiled code 7.9), its instructions 12.2% below b9's; what is left of knapsack's gap is the per-batch interpretation (about 3 ms), not the kernels (ADD 1.7, GT 1.7, the masked set 0.55 ms); the others the same by instructions; make check's server_view_workers timed out once (the known flake), passed 3/3 alone and in a full rerun; bank queries' instructions within 0.1% of b9's, TPC-C -0.3%; the two large gaps left (matmul's nested rounds, BFS's candidate tail) the user's to choose
|
| |
|
|
| |
and the branch's counting pass a batch, about 0.35 us), and the general way's floor at 1024 lanes (about 8.3 ms, ADD and GT apart) against the compiled code's 7.9
|
| |
|
|
| |
no lanes while every lane's e is the same, a list's cells once a batch): against b9, interleaved, matmul 40.01 to 25.97 ms, knapsack 11.47 to 10.07, roots 8.97 to 8.29, join 117.2 to 115.8, BFS and sort the same; sum0 8.69 to 1.01 (bar 1.5); matmul short of its bar (21): the nested rounds' interpretation (about 14 ms) and the matrices' making (4-5) were left out of the arithmetic; the executor alone and the bank queries' instructions as b9 (0.08%), TPC-C +0.7%; stage 4 next (knapsack's six passes to three)
|
| |
|
|
| |
ms against 21): the arithmetic left out the nested rounds' interpretation (about 15 ms) and the matrices' making (4-5 ms)
|
| |
|
|
| |
interleaved): matmul 38.18 to 36.10 ms with 4.5% fewer instructions (segments in its nested rounds), knapsack's per-batch cost 0.68 to 0.63 us but knapsack 10.35 to 10.51 ms with 1% fewer instructions (its per-element loops placed elsewhere), sum0 1,743 instructions a batch: short of 025's stage-2 bars (9.2 ms, 0.45 us, 33 ms): 025 priced a segment's instruction at 50 cycles, the counts show about 25 instructions, and a batch's cost sits in finds, bounds, read records, lane setup, masks and the deferred store's check; a list's cells once a batch measured at 3% and not made; next, per element: stage 3's four-byte MUL (matmul 21 ms)
|
| |
|
|
| |
load, run by the same rules with the per-instruction pass as fallback, and a list's cells once a batch; bars by arithmetic: knapsack's inner block has 10-12 of 24 instructions in segments, so 0.45 us a batch and 9.2 ms (the compiled code's 7.9 needs stage 4's passes), matmul 33 ms, sum0 1,300 instructions a batch
|
| |
|
|
| |
interleaved): knapsack's per-batch cost 0.90 to 0.68 us and knapsack 11.48 to 10.34 ms, short of 025's bars (0.60 us, 10.3 ms): 025 counted the pass's per-instruction head as lookups; sum0 2,330 to 1,822 instructions a batch (bar 1,550); matmul 40.0 to 38.2 ms with the same instructions and BFS 24.04 to 24.31 with 0.2% fewer (placement); sum0's 8.69 to 6.13 ms mostly the compiler now vectorizing the reductions' first loop; the executor alone the same instructions; what is left a batch is the pass's Val handling (stage 2); 041 runs.sh pairs, pairs and counts data
|
| |
|
|
| |
over one round's batches, 3x too high; about 2,300 instructions (0.33 us) in a small block, 0.90 us in knapsack's (38% of its time, not 20%)
|
| |
|
|
| |
only values each batch: knapsack's per-batch cost measured at 0.90 us, 38% of its 11.5 ms (BATCH 1024 against 256 under a sampled profile: re-reading the block about 39%, value kinds 26%, list facts and dependence 22%, dispatch 14%), sum0's 0.33 us, matmul's inner-round dispatch about 13 ms and float-checked arithmetic about 22; five stages (facts at load, static kinds and list facts once a batch, typed kernels, fewer passes, the tails) with bars from those shares; 041 batch-costs data
|
| |
|
|
| |
bar on roots (0.71x the compiled code's cycles a step), not on knapsack (4x) or BFS (2.4x), as NEON has no gather and a tile's lanes go out and in one by one; tight passes of the batch executor's own shape in the same run at 1.2x (BFS) and 0.4x (knapsack, clang): the shape is right and the 3x is implementation, so 132's A (a batch program made once at load, loops tight by type, width and stride, fewer passes) is the way; tiles kept aside for chains of arithmetic; 132, 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
passes through memory; a batch's fixed cost about 6,500 instructions, 1 us, measured by 1024 against 256 lanes: fewer lanes are slower, so 024's L1 sizing was the wrong lever; a candidate's tail about 250), what the database literature measured of the same shape (X100, Kersten 2018's cycles and instructions a tuple, Sompolski 2011, Gubner 2017's in-register aggregation, Photon, Ertl and Gregg), the ways judged by the philosophy (a batch program made once at load; register tiles with threaded dispatch as the one general way past the floor; a table of fused operations and AOT C out), and the deciding experiment with its bar first (three bodies in tiles of 4, 8, 16: within 1.3x the compiled code's cycles an element, or it is not the answer); 041 lanes data
|
| |
|
|
| |
general way over a table of fused operations: values computed by the same code taken from the first, if !c one branch, selections (an arm's few lanes alone), keys as bits asked in one loop, L.first + i affine, a slice's bounds at once: the suite's BFS 211 to 112 instructions an edge, 41 to 24 ms (the compiled code 38.5, 7.7); where the rest goes and the floor of the general way (about twice the compiled code); knapsack and matmul 10% slower, cause not fully told; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
batch's rounds together or spread into lanes, filters asked as a batch opens and again at its end): the suite's BFS batched, 93 to 41 ms (the compiled code 7.7, C 10); where it goes (211 instructions an edge against 38.5: a filter's code over every lane the most); the floor of operations each a pass over the lanes (about 50 an edge, 1.3x the compiled code) and what would pass it (fused operations from a table, 024's); the choice left: a table of them, or the compiled code kept for such work; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
ms, a recurrence's steps as numbered values and one loop of actions 44.4 to 21.8, reductions' ends in any order where it cannot tell 9.80 to 4.00): knapsack 10.8, matmul 36.4, join 118, sort 55.5 ms without machine code; where each work's time goes now; BFS's arithmetic (a tail of about a tenth of the edges, done batch-side; edges spread into lanes, not walked together) and the three pieces it needs; the view-workers check's flake; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
walks (join 423 to 161 ms without machine code, the tier 74) and what a batch pays for, measured apart: an instruction about 20 ns a batch (0.02 ns a round at 1024 lanes), a reduction's end 4-9 ns a round, an append about 100 ns (the executor's), join's recurrence about 60 ns a round; BFS not batched (a count that grows, a filter that only grows, nested walks), so the JIT stays for now; the next in that order: appends at once, the recurrence's steps in registers, reductions' ends; 022 and 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
stage 2 under ASan and UBSan (139 programs, the executor's output)
|
| |
|
|
| |
together lane by lane, breaks, reductions folded in the rounds' order) and the measured passes after it (finite checks in the arithmetic's loop, tests as four-byte masks, the loop's value made once): roots 9.13 ms without machine code, below the tier's 9.57; matmul 50 (the tier 14.3: its table's loop and 15 instructions a nested round left); 685 random programs alike; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
knapsack 1,041 to 13.6 ms in the executor (the compiled code 7.5; its inner loop 1.17x the tier's, the stage's criterion missed; the table's adds left to stage 4), the executor without batch loops unchanged; what measuring overturned (a call among the steps cost 20% of the instructions, so two copies; run aligned to 64 for its cycles; results apart from operands for vector code); tests; 1024 lanes, 134 KB a thread; 024 and CHECKPOINT say so
|
| |
|
|
| |
forms (geometric mean 1.58 and 1.24, the tier 1.92), the prototypes as a ceiling (124's floor 0.90x became 1.2-2.5x), division a third of the interpreted recurrence, the distance rule for equal strides only, why not copy-and-patch, matmul's miss without a fused multiply-add; CHECKPOINT says so
|
| |
|
|
| |
the C compiler makes at build time (no code made at run time, 32 KB of lanes), checks as a batch's flag and a failed batch run again round by round; which loops batch (sums, affine keys at a nonnegative distance, filters that only grow, a count that only grows), sections run round by round interpreted, fused operations from a table, the JIT retired if it is not slower; 041's prototypes against C: roots 0.99, knapsack 0.71, matmul 0.94, BFS 1.03, join 1.59 (the tier 1.20-2.46); CHECKPOINT says so
|
| |
|
|
| |
generic code's (steps 0.1%), what the tier needs for it (a list's count as a changing value); 023 cites words at e2e56dd
|
| |
|
|
| |
knapsack 1.19, sort 1.37, join 2.54, words 5.58, matmul 1.85, BFS 1.61; geometric mean 1.92, from 3-300x at 6b45806), what each change did, the forms measured in assembly, the apps unchanged, what is left (text in the executor, BFS's appends, spills); CHECKPOINT says so
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
round, in range for every round (its opening found it) and in a full list, reads its cell through a pointer, a phi at the loop's head: the column (read from the list) plus the key at round 0 times four where the loop opens, its key's step a round times four added at its latch. The key's nodes, in range, give up nowhere (no snapshot kept), so a key read by such accesses alone is not made; a list found by key alone with such an access is full where the tier begins (else the generic code runs the nest). matmul 23.0 to 14.2 ms (3.1x to 1.9x C)
module_tier's programs sweep lists by keys stepping with a round (in range or not, a list full or not)
|
| |
|
|
| |
20.7 ms, pointer with multiply-add 13.1, apart 10.0, with checks 10.2, a bit tested before each load 13.4): the position's multiply and the pre-load branch cost, the checks hardly; 023 section 5 says so and what comes first (pointer induction, then a full list's copy)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
(constants between), checks only the last is finite, giving up at the run's first snapshot (the executor makes the run again and fails where it does); a snapshot's constants written as the constants they are, not kept in registers; the generic code's append in a loop keeping its books puts into a HASHED list as append does (its headroom kept). roots 12.2 to 10.9 ms (1.59x C), join 84 to 74 (2.5x)
module_assumptions: a run of products and sums past the largest number (CHAIN_SOURCE)
|
| |
|
|
| |
slots, as C's table: in the L3), the generic code's APPEND into a HASHED list at its key's slot while its table need not grow, a whole number over a whole one above 0 never -0 (so MINSTD's floor(x * 48271 / p) is whole and x an integer in the tier). join 108 to 84 ms (2.8x C), sort 58 to 37 (1.4x)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
keyed by a text is HASHED from its first item, its table's slots holding the texts' hashes (FNV-1a), a match the key cell's bytes too; HAS and a field by key read the table; its order made by a merge sort (the first eight bytes as a number, then all). A FIND whose index only an ITEM_SET of its list takes, the code between in a line finding by key alone, sets the item where it was found (PLAN_ROW: a HASHED list's slot, no position made). words 453 to 217 ms (5.8x C)
text_keys_equivalence: adds, has, fields by key, sets where found, positions, runs, removes and clears against a tree keyed by the text
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
each item's cells at its key's slot in its members' table, found by key there (the key and its cells read at one slot, as C's table); its order made by a radix sort of the slots' keys when something asks for a position (twice an event, then FLAT or a tree). The tier finds by key alone in a HASHED list (its bits' bit 1, its limit all ones: the bounds checked at a loop's opening still hold) out of the line; a list keyed by each count in order is DENSE from its first item. join 531 to 108 ms (3.5x C), sort 98 to 58 (2.1x)
arrays_equivalence counts the HASHED form against a tree; module_tier's programs read a HASHED list by key
|
| |
|
|
| |
not past it; representation first, since a keyed list given keys in order stays FLAT and is searched by halves (knapsack's and matmul's 300x)
|
| |
|
|
| |
without), the suite of seven kinds of work at 3-300x C, floors at 0.90x C with the meaning's checks hoisted to 0-3%; CHECKPOINT says so
|
| |
|
|
| |
place fault where they are; now is the host's per-event value); value numbering of pure operations, which words' floor assumes
|
| |
|
|
| |
types and ranges, hoists the meaning's checks out of loops, counts work per loop, allocates registers; criteria on research 124's suite of seven kinds of work against C (each within 1.25x, the geometric mean below 1.0, the meaning's checks within 5%), from floors at 0.90x C
|
| |
|
|
| |
reading ahead to the bucket's last cell, the edge loop's checks; that past C is the reading ahead (16.1 ms without it, C 9.8), and that the criteria move to 023's suite
|
