Scribd
Upload
132 views

Performance Evaluation of Java For Numerical Computing: Roldan Pozo

Java provides portability through its virtual machine but can be slower than native C/C++ code due to interpretation overhead and lack of optimization. With techniques like data blocking, loop unrolling, and JIT compilation, Java performance for numerical linear algebra has improved to 50-90% of optimized C code based on SciMark benchmarks on various hardware platforms. While Java still lags C in raw speed, its portability and safety make it attractive for some numerical applications.

Uploaded by

Reivaj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views

Performance Evaluation of Java For Numerical Computing: Roldan Pozo

Java provides portability through its virtual machine but can be slower than native C/C++ code due to interpretation overhead and lack of optimization. With techniques like data blocking, loop unrolling, and JIT compilation, Java performance for numerical linear algebra has improved to 50-90% of optimized C code based on SciMark benchmarks on various hardware platforms. While Java still lags C in raw speed, its portability and safety make it attractive for some numerical applications.

Uploaded by

Reivaj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 44

Performance evaluation of Java

for numerical computing

Roldan Pozo
Leader, Mathematical Software Group
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Background: Where we are coming from...

National Institute of Standards and Technology


US Department of Commerce
NIST (3,000 employees, mainly scientists and engineers)
middle to large-scale simulation modeling
mainly Fortran , C/C++ applications
utilize many tools: Matlab, Mathematica, Tcl/Tk, Perl, GAUSS, etc.
typical arsenal: IBM SP2, SGI/ Alpha/PC clusters
Mathematical & Computational Sciences
Division
Algorithms for simulation and modeling
High performance computational linear algebra
Numerical solution of PDEs
Multigrid and hierarchical methods
Numerical Optimization
Special Functions
Monte Carlo simulations
Exactly what is Java?
Programming language
general-purpose object oriented
Standard runtime system
Java Virtual Machine
API Specifications
AWT, Java3D, JBDC, etc.
JavaBeans, JavaSpaces, etc.
Verification
100% Pure Java
Example: Successive Over-Relaxation
public static final void SOR(double omega, double G[][], int num_iterations)
{
int M = G.length;
int N = G[0].length;

double omega_over_four = omega * 0.25;


double one_minus_omega = 1.0 - omega;

for (int p=0; p<num_iterations; p++) {


for (int i=1; i<M-1; i++) {
for (int j=1; j<N-1; j++)
G[i][j] = omega_over_four * (G[i-1][j] + Gi[i+1][j] +
G[i][j-1] + G[i][j+1]) + one_minus_omega * Gi[j];
}
}
}
Why Java?
Portability of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM)
Safe, minimize memory leaks and pointer errors
Network-aware environment
Parallel and Distributed computing
Threads
Remote Method Invocation (RMI)
Integrated graphics
Widely adopted
embedded systems, browsers, appliances
being adopted for teaching, development
Portability
Binary portability is Javas greatest strength
several million JDK downloads
Java developers for intranet applications greater
than C, C++, and Basic combined
JVM bytecodes are the key
Almost any language can generate Java bytecodes
Issue:
can performance be obtained at bytecode level?
Why not Java?

Performance
interpreters too slow
poor optimizing compilers
virtual machine
Why not Java?

lack of scientific software


computational libraries
numerical interfaces
major effort to port from f77/C
Performance
What are we really measuring?
language vs. virtual machine (VM)
Java -> bytecode translator
bytecode execution (VM)
interpreted
just-in-time compilation (JIT)
adaptive compiler (HotSpot)
underlying hardware
Making Java fast(er)
Native methods (JNI)
stand-alone compliers (.java -> .exe)
modified JVMs
(fused mult-adds, bypass array bounds checking)

aggressive bytecode optimization


JITs, flash compilers, HotSpot
bytecode transformers
concurrency
Matrix multiply
(100% Pure Java)

60
(i,j,k)
50

40
Mflops

30

20

10

0
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250

Matrix size (NxN)

*Pentium II I 500Mhz; java JDK 1.2 (Win98)


Optimizing Java linear algebra
Use native Java arrays: A[][]
algorithms in 100% Pure Java
exploit
multi-level blocking
loop unrolling
indexing optimizations
maximize on-chip / in-cache operations
can be done today with javac, jview, J++, etc.
Matrix Multiply: data blocking
1000x1000 matrices (out of cache)
Java: 181 Mflops
2-level blocking:
40x40 (cache)
8x8 unrolled (chip)
subtle trade-off between more temp variables and explicit indexing
block size selection important: 64x64 yields only 143 Mflops

*Pentium III 500Mhz; Sun JDK 1.2 (Win98)


Matrix multiply optimized
(100% Pure Java)

250

200

150
Mflops

(i,j,k)
100 optimzied

50

0
40 120 200 280 360 440 520 600 680 760 840 920 1000

Matrix size (NxN)

*Pentium II I 500Mhz; java JDK 1.2 (Win98)


Sparse Matrix Computations

unstructured pattern
coordinate storage
(CSR/CSC)
array bounds check cannot
be optimized away
Sparse matrix/vector Multiplication
(Mflops)

Matrix size C/C++ Java


(nnz)
371 43.9 33.7
20,033 21.4 14.0
24,382 23.2 17.0
126,150 11.1 9.1

*266 MHz PII, Win95: Watcom C 10.6, Jview (SDK 2.0)


Java Benchmarking Efforts
Caffine Mark BenchBeans
SPECjvm98 VolanoMark
Java Linpack Plasma benchmark
Java Grande Forum RMI benchmark
Benchmarks JMark
SciMark JavaWorld benchmark
Image/J benchmark ...
SciMark Benchmark
Numerical benchmark for Java, C/C++
composite results for five kernels:
FFT (complex, 1D)
Successive Over-relaxation
Monte Carlo integration
Sparse matrix multiply
dense LU factorization
results in Mflops
two sizes: small, large
SciMark 2.0 results
Intel PIII (600 MHz), IBM
1.3, Linux
120
AMD Athlon (750 MHz),
IBM 1.1.8, OS/2
100
Intel Celeron (464 MHz),
MS 1.1.4, Win98
80
Sun UltraSparc 60, Sun
60 1.1.3, Sol 2.x

SGI MIPS (195 MHz) Sun


40 1.2, Unix

Alpha EV6 (525 MHz), NE


20 1.1.5, Unix

0
JVMs have improved over time
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1.1.6 1.1.8 1.2.1 1.3

SciMark : 333 MHz Sun Ultra 10


SciMark: Java vs. C
(Sun UltraSPARC 60)

90
80
70
60
50
C
40 Java
30
20
10
0
FFT SOR MC Sparse LU

* Sun JDK 1.3 (HotSpot) , javac -0; Sun cc -0; SunOS 5.7
SciMark (large): Java vs. C
(Sun UltraSPARC 60)

70

60

50

40
C
30 Java
20

10

0
FFT SOR MC Sparse LU

* Sun JDK 1.3 (HotSpot) , javac -0; Sun cc -0; SunOS 5.7
SciMark: Java vs. C
(Intel PIII 500MHz, Win98)

120

100

80

60 C
Java
40

20

0
FFT SOR MC Sparse LU

* Sun JDK 1.2, javac -0; Microsoft VC++ 5.0, cl -0; Win98
SciMark (large): Java vs. C
(Intel PIII 500MHz, Win98)

60

50

40

30 C
Java
20

10

0
FFT SOR MC Sparse LU

* Sun JDK 1.2, javac -0; Microsoft VC++ 5.0, cl -0; Win98
SciMark: Java vs. C
(Intel PIII 500MHz, Linux)

160
140
120
100
80 C
60 Java

40
20
0
FFT SOR MC Sparse LU

* RH Linux 6.2, gcc (v. 2.91.66) -06, IBM JDK 1.3, javac -O
SciMark results
500 MHz PIII (Mflops)
70

60

50
Mflops

40

30

20

10

*500MHz PIII, Microsoft C/C++ 5.0 (cl -O2x -G6), Sun JDK 1.2, Microsoft JDK 1.1.4, IBM JRE 1.1.8
C vs. Java
Why C is faster than Java
direct mapping to hardware
more opportunities for aggressive optimization
no garbage collection
Why Java is faster than C (?)
different compilers/optimizations
performance more a factor of economics than
technology
PC compilers arent tuned for numerics
Current JVMs are quite good...

1000x1000 matrix multiply over 180Mflops


500 MHz Intel PIII, JDK 1.2

Scimark high score: 224 Mflops


1.2 GHz AMD Athlon, IBM 1.3.0, Linux
Another approach...
Use an aggressive optimizing compiler
code using Array classes which mimic Fortran
storage
e.g. A[i][j] becomes A.get(i,j)
ugly, but can be fixed with operator overloading
extensions
exploit hardware (FMAs)
result: 85+% of Fortran on RS/6000
IBM High Performance Compiler

Snir, Moreria, et. al


native compiler (.java -> .exe)
requires source code
cant embed in browser, but
produces very fast codes
Java vs. Fortran Performance
250

Mflops 200

150

100

50

*IBM RS/6000 67MHz POWER2 (266 Mflops peak) AIX Fortran, HPJC
Yet another approach...
HotSpot
Sun Microsystems
Progressive profiler/compiler
trades off aggressive
compilation/optimization at code bottlenecks
quicker start-up time than JITs
tailors optimization to application
Concurrency
Java threads
runs on multiprocessors in NT, Solaris, AIX
provides mechanisms for locks,
synchornization
can be implemented in native threads for
performance
no native support for parallel loops, etc.
Concurrency
Remote Method Invocation (RMI)
extension of RPC
high-level than sockets/network programming
works well for functional parallelism
works poorly for data parallelism
serialization is expensive
no parallel/distribution tools
Numerical Software
(Libraries)
Scientific Java Libraries
Matrix library (JAMA) IBM
NIST/Mathworks Array class package
LU, QR, SVD, eigenvalue Univ. of Maryland
solvers
Linear Algebra library
Java Numerical Toolkit
JLAPACK
(JNT)
port of LAPACK
special functions
BLAS subset
Visual Numerics
LINPACK
Complex
Java Numerics Group
industry-wide consortium to establish tools,
APIs, and libraries
IBM, Intel, Compaq/Digital, Sun, MathWorks, VNI, NAG
NIST, Inria
Berkeley, UCSB, Austin, MIT, Indiana

component of Java Grande Forum


Concurrency group
Numerics Issues
complex data types
lightweight objects
operator overloading
generic typing (templates)
IEEE floating point model
Parallel Java projects
Java-MPI Jwarp
JavaPVM DARP
Titanium (UC Tango
Berkeley) DO!
HPJava Jmpi
DOGMA MpiJava
JTED JET Parallel JVM
Conclusions

Java numerics can be competitive with C


50% rule of thumb for many instances
can achieve efficiency of optimized C/Fortran
best Java performance on commodity platforms
biggest challenge now:
integrate array and complex into Java
more libraries!
Scientific Java Resources

Java Numerics Group


http://math.nist.gov/javanumerics

Java Grande Forum


http://www.javagrade.org
SciMark Benchmark
http://math.nist.gov/scimark

You might also like