1 / 11

Using Phoenix for Exploring Whole Execution Traces

Using Phoenix for Exploring Whole Execution Traces. Rajiv Gupta Sriraman Tallam & Xiangyu Zhang The University of Arizona. Whole Execution Traces. Values Computed. Control Flow. Dependences Exercised. Comprehensive Compact [ MICRO 2004 ]. Addresses Referenced.

libitha
Download Presentation

Using Phoenix for Exploring Whole Execution Traces

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Phoenix for Exploring Whole Execution Traces Rajiv Gupta Sriraman Tallam & Xiangyu Zhang The University of Arizona

  2. Whole Execution Traces Values Computed Control Flow Dependences Exercised • Comprehensive • Compact [MICRO 2004] Addresses Referenced Dynamic Slicing • Locating faulty code by analyzing faulty runs [AADEBUG 2005] Dynamic Matching • Comparing executions of two versions [ESEC-FSE 2005] Execution Histories Debugging Scenarios

  3. Whole Execution Trace Representation • Static Program Representation • Control flow graph • Program Dependences • Data and control dependences • Dynamic Profile Representation • Designed for Analysis • Annotates static program representation • Related information can be easily accessed • Comprehensive • Control flow • Addresses and values • Data and control dependences • Compact • Design compression techniques

  4. Compacted WET Sizes

  5. Relevant Full Data Dynamic Slicing

  6. Comparison of Dynamic Slices How often erroneous statement is in the dynamic slice? Assignments Predicates

  7. Comparison of Dynamic Slices Slice Sizes

  8. Execute trace OPT Compare mapping Compiler Report Execute UNOPT trace Dynamic Matching & Comparison Checking Drawbacks • Compiler writer must produce mappings • Compiler modification may not be possible Source Code

  9. Comparison Checking[ESEC-FSE 2005]

  10. Profiling Using Phoenix [PACT 2005] • Captured Control Flow Trace • Parsed the CFG and inserted “printf bbid” instructions at the beginning of every basic block. • < 100 lines of programming. • Captured Memory Dependence Trace • At Store instructions • Inserted a call to a DLL function “storei” that saves the address and instruction id in a hash, indexed by the address. • At Load instructions • Inserted a call to a DLL function “loadi” that looks up the hash with the memory address to obtain the dependence. • Captured extended Control Flow Trace • Additional control flow captures dependences.

  11. Experience with Phoenix • SPEC2000 benchmarks  Native Binary. • Native binary  Phoenix Lowest level IR. • Instrument IR  inserts “print bbid” instructions and calls to “loadi” and “storei” in a DLL. • Implement “loadi” and “storei” in the DLL separately. • Write out the binary and generate the new DLL. • Using DLLs simplified the programming. • < 300 lines of programming, mainly implementing “storei” and “loadi” in the DLL.

More Related