1 / 36

Finding Dominators in Flowgraphs Linear-Time Algorithm 1 and Experimental Study 2

Finding Dominators in Flowgraphs Linear-Time Algorithm 1 and Experimental Study 2 Loukas Georgiadis 1 joint work with Robert E. Tarjan 2 joint work with Renato F. Werneck , Robert E. Tarjan , Spyridon Triantafyllis and David I. August.

moeshe
Download Presentation

Finding Dominators in Flowgraphs Linear-Time Algorithm 1 and Experimental Study 2

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. Finding Dominators in Flowgraphs Linear-Time Algorithm 1 and Experimental Study 2 Loukas Georgiadis 1 joint work with Robert E. Tarjan 2 joint work with Renato F. Werneck, Robert E. Tarjan, Spyridon Triantafyllis and David I. August

  2. Dominators in a Flowgraph Flowgraph: G =(V, E, r); each v in V is reachable from r vdominateswif every path from rtow includes v r v w

  3. Dominators in a Flowgraph Flowgraph: G =(V, E, r); each v in V is reachable from r vdominateswif every path from rtow includes v Set of dominators:Dom(w)={v|v dominates w} Trivial dominators: wr,w,rDom(w) Immediate dominator: idom(w)Dom(w) – w and dominatedby everyv in Dom(w) – w

  4. Dominators in a Flowgraph Flowgraph: G =(V, E, r); each v in V is reachable from r vdominateswif every path from rtow includes v Set of dominators:Dom(w)={v|v dominates w} Trivial dominators: wr,w,rDom(w) Immediate dominator: idom(w)Dom(w) – w and dominatedby everyv in Dom(w) – w Goal: Find idom(v)for each vinV (immediate dominator tree) Applications: Program optimization, code generation, circuit testing

  5. History • 1979 Lengauer and Tarjan; O(m· (m,n)) time. • 1997Alstrup, Harel, Lauridsen and Thorup; O(n+m) time for RAM. • 1998 Buchsbaum, Kaplan, Rogers and Westbrook; claimed • O(n+m) for Pointer Machine. (Corrected in 2004 to work in • linear time for RAM.) • 2004 G. and Tarjan • We showed that the Buchsbaum et al. algorithm runs in • O(m·(m,n)) time. • Based on Buchsbaum et al. we gave a linear-time algorithm for • Pointer Machine, simpler than Alstrup et al. (no complicated • data structures).

  6. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm Depth-First Search DFS Tree D We refer to the vertices by their DFS numbers: v<w :v was visited by DFS before w r 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8

  7. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm: Semidominators Depth-First Search DFS Tree D We refer to the vertices by their DFS numbers: v<w :v was visited by DFS before w Semidominator path (SDOM-path): P= (v0=v,v1,v2, …,vk=w)such that vi>w, for 1 ik-1 r 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8

  8. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm: Semidominators Depth-First Search DFS Tree D We refer to the vertices by their DFS numbers: v<w :v was visited by DFS before w Semidominator path (SDOM-path): P= (v0=v,v1,v2, …,vk=w)such that vi>w, for 1 ik-1 Semidominator: sdom(w)=min {v|SDOM-pathfromvtow} r 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8

  9. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm • Overview • Carry out a DFS. • Process the vertices in reverse preorder. • For vertex w, compute sdom(w). • Implicitly define idom(w). • Explicitly define idom(w)by a preorder pass.

  10. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm:Evaluate minima on tree paths Data Structure: Maintain forest F and supports the operations: link(v,w): Add the edge (v,w)to F. eval(v): Let r = root of the tree that contains v in F. If v= r then return v. Otherwise return any vertex with minimum sdom among the vertices uthat are proper descendants of rand ancestors ofv. Initially every vertex in V is a root in F.

  11. The Lengauer-Tarjan Algorithm:Evaluate minima on tree paths Data Structure: Maintain forest F and supports the operations: link(v,w): Add the edge (v,w)to F. eval(v): Let r = root of the tree that contains v in F. If v= r then return v. Otherwise return any vertex with minimum sdom among the vertices uthat are proper descendants of rand ancestors ofv. Initially every vertex in V is a root in F. Simple version: nlinks, mevals in O(mlogn). Sophisticated version: n links, mevals in O(mα(m,n)).

  12. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. 1 2 3 22 15 4 5 7 17 16 21 6 8 18 9 12 19 20 10 11 13 14

  13. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. 1 2 3 22 trivial microtree 15 4 5 7 17 16 21 6 8 18 9 12 nontrivial microtree 19 20 10 11 13 14 g = 3

  14. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. CoreC: Tree D– nontrivial microtrees; has   n/g leaves. 1 2 3 22 15 4 5 7 17 16 21 6 8 18 9 12 19 20 10 11 13 14

  15. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. CoreC: Tree D– nontrivial microtrees; has   n/g leaves. Line: Path (v1=s,v2, …,vk=t) in C such that outdegreeC(vi)=1, 1ik-1, and outdegreeC(vk)= 0 or >1. 1 2 3 22 15 4 5 7 17 16 21 6 8 18 9 12 19 20 10 11 13 14

  16. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. CoreC: Tree D– nontrivial microtrees; has   n/g leaves. Line: Path (v1=s,v2, …,vk=t) in C such that outdegreeC(vi)=1, 1ik-1, and outdegreeC(vk)= 0 or >1. line 1 2 3 22 15 4 5 7 17 16 21 6 8 18 9 12 19 20 10 11 13 14

  17. The Linear-Time Algorithm Partition D into trivial and nontrivial microtrees. [Dixon and Tarjan ‘97] Nontrivial microtree: Maximal subtree of Dof size  gthat contains at least one leaf of D. Trivial microtree: Single internal vertex of D. CoreC: Tree D– nontrivial microtrees; has   n/g leaves. Line: Path (v1=s,v2, …,vk=t) in C such that outdegreeC(vi)=1, 1ik-1, and outdegreeC(vk)= 0 or >1. There are L  2n/g lines. Contract each line into a single vertex  tree C’ with L nodes. {1, 2, 3} {4, 7, 8} {15, 17}

  18. The Linear-Time Algorithm Extend the definition of semidominators for the vertices of the nontrivial microtrees [Buchsbaum et al.]: Pushed external dominator path (PXDOM-path): P= (v0=v,v1,v2, …,vk=w)such that viroot of microtreeofw, for 1ik-1. Pushed external dominator: pxdom(w)= min{v|PXDOM-path fromvtow} pxdom(w) sdom(w) w

  19. The Linear-Time Algorithm Extend the definition of semidominators for the vertices of the nontrivial microtrees [Buchsbaum et al.]: Pushed external dominator path (PXDOM-path): P= (v0=v,v1,v2, …,vk=w)such that viroot of microtreeofw, for 1ik-1. Pushed external dominator: pxdom(w)= min{v|PXDOM-path fromvtow} For any vertex w of the core C pxdom(w) = sdom(w) pxdom(w) sdom(w) w

  20. The Linear-Time Algorithm • Overview • Compute internal dominators in each nontrivial microtree.

  21. The Linear-Time Algorithm • Overview • Compute internal dominators in each nontrivial microtree. • Compute pxdoms in each nontrivial microtree t by link and eval on C’ and Nearest Common Ancestor (NCA) queries on a tree built by the sdom values of the line that contains the parent of the root of t.

  22. The Linear-Time Algorithm • Overview • Compute internal dominators in each nontrivial microtree. • Compute pxdoms in each nontrivial microtree t by link and eval on C’ and Nearest Common Ancestor (NCA) queries on a tree built by the sdom values of the line that contains the parent of the root of t. • Compute sdoms in each line lby a top-down pass • using link and eval on C’ and contracting connected components inl.

  23. The Linear-Time Algorithm • Overview • Compute internal dominators in each nontrivial microtree. • Compute pxdoms in each nontrivial microtree t by link and eval on C’ and Nearest Common Ancestor (NCA) queries on a tree built by the sdom values of the line that contains the parent of the root of t. • Compute sdoms in each line lby a top-down pass • using link and eval on C’ and contracting connected components inl. • Remarks: link and eval run in linear-time on C’ . • Buchsbam et al.claimedthat link and eval run • in linear time on C but the claim isfalse.

  24. The Iterative Algorithm: Set-based Dominators can be computed by solving iteratively the set of equations [Allen and Cocke, 1972] Dom(v)=(u  pred(v)Dom(u) ){v}, v r Initialization Dom(r)={r} Dom(v)=, v r In the intersection we consider only the nonempty Dom(u).

  25. The Iterative Algorithm: Set-based Dominators can be computed by solving iteratively the set of equations [Allen and Cocke, 1972] Dom(v)=(u  pred(v)Dom(u) ){v}, v r Initialization Dom(r)={r} Dom(v)=, v r In the intersection we consider only the nonempty Dom(u). Each Dom(v)set can be represented by an n-bit vector. Intersection bit-wise AND. Requires n2space. Very slow in practice.

  26. The Iterative Algorithm: Tree-based Efficient implementation [Cooper, Harvey and Kennedy 2000] dfs(r) T {r} changed  true while (changed ) do changed  false for all vinV– r in reverse postorderdo x nca(pred(v)) if x parent(v)then parent(v)x changed  true end done done

  27. The Iterative Algorithm Running Time Each pair wise intersection takes O(n) time. The number of iterations is  d + 3. [Kam and Ullman ’76] d =max#back-edges in any cycle-free path of G = O(n) Running time = O(mn2) This bound is tight, but very pessimistic in practice.

  28. The Iterative Algorithm: Generic Tree-based T T0 /* aspanning (sub)tree of G */ changed  true while (changed ) do changed  false for all vinV– r in orderdo x nca(pred(v)) if x parent(v)then parent(v)x changed  true end done done

  29. The Iterative Algorithm: Generic Tree-based T T0 /* aspanning (sub)tree of G */ changed  true while (changed ) do changed  false for all vinV– r in orderdo x nca(pred(v)) if x parent(v)then parent(v)x changed  true end done done Good choices (in practice): T0 =a Bread-First Search(BFS) tree  = BFS order

  30. A Hybrid Algorithm Lemma: For any vertex wr, idom(w)=NCA(I,parent(w),sdom(w)). I = (immediate) dominator tree parent(w) = parent of w in the DFS tree D

  31. A Hybrid Algorithm • Lemma: For any vertex wr, • idom(w)=NCA(I,parent(w),sdom(w)). • I = (immediate) dominator tree • parent(w) = parent of w in the DFS tree D • SEMI-NCA: • Compute sdoms as in simple version of LT. • Construct I incrementally applying Lemma. • (NCA calculations implemented naïvely)

  32. Experimental Results • Algorithms • SLT: simple version of Lengauer-Tarjan • LT: almost-linear-time version of Lengauer-Tarjan • IDFS: DFS tree-based iterative • IBFS: BFS tree-based iterative • SNCA: SEMI-NCA

  33. Experimental Results • Inputs • Control-flow graphs from SPARC ’95 generated by the SUIF compiler (Stanford). • > 4900 graphs, avg #vertices ~ 40, #edges ~ 55 • max #vertices ~ 2100, #edges ~ 3200 • Control-flow graphs from SPARC’ 00 generated by the IMPACT compiler (UIUC). • > 2000 graphs, avg #vertices ~ 25, #edges ~ 70 • max #vertices~580, #edges~3100 • VLSI circuits from ISCAS’89 suite. • 50 graphs, avg #vertices ~ 3200, #edges ~ 5000 • max #vertices ~ 24000, #edges ~ 34000

  34. Experimental Results Times relative to BFS: geometric mean and geometric standard deviation IDFS IBFS LT SLT SNCA mean dev mean dev mean dev mean dev mean dev CIRCUITS 5.891.196.171.426.711.184.621.154.401.14 SUIF-INT 2.451.502.251.623.691.402.481.332.731.45 IMPACT 2.601.652.241.774.021.402.741.332.561.31 IMPACTP 2.581.632.251.823.841.442.611.302.521.29

  35. Experimental Results iterations comparisons per vertex SDP(%) IDFS IBFS IDFS IBFS LT SLT SNCA CIRCUITS 76.72.80003.2000 32.6 39.3 12.0 9.9 8.9 IMPACT 73.42.06861.4385 30.9 28.0 15.6 12.8 11.1 IMPACTP 88.62.08191.5376 30.2 32.2 15.5 12.3 10.9 SUIF-INT 63.92.00091.6659 14.9 17.2 11.2 8.6 7.2 SDP = percentage of vertices v that have parent(v) = sdom(v)

  36. Experimental Results

More Related