Automatically Splitting a Two-Stage Lambda Calculus

Feltman, Nicolas; Angiuli, Carlo; Acar, Umut A.; Fatahalian, Kayvon

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49498-1_11

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The natural operational semantics then is a logically-motivated form of partial evaluation which yields a residual program of type A. This idea was picked up by Feltman et al [2016] to instead split the program statically into two stages where results from the first stage are communicated to the second. Again, neither linearity (in the sense of linear logic), nor any specific cost semantics appears in this work.…”

Section: Further Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallel complexity analysis with temporal session types

Das

Hoffmann

Pfenning

2018

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the problem of parametric parallel complexity analysis of concurrent, message-passing programs. To make the analysis local and compositional, it is based on a conservative extension of binary session types, which structure the type and direction of communication between processes and stand in a Curry-Howard correspondence with intuitionistic linear logic. The main innovation is to enrich session types with the temporal modalities next ( A), always (✷A), and eventually (✸A), to additionally prescribe the timing of the exchanged messages in a way that is precise yet flexible. The resulting temporal session types uniformly express properties such as the message rate of a stream, the latency of a pipeline, the response time of a concurrent queue, or the span of a fork/join parallel program. The analysis is parametric in the cost model and the presentation focuses on communication cost as a concrete example. The soundness of the analysis is established by proofs of progress and type preservation using a timed multiset rewriting semantics. Representative examples illustrate the scope and usability of the approach.

show abstract

Section: Further Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallel complexity analysis with temporal session types

Das

Hoffmann

Pfenning

2018

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A different but related line of work concerns type systems for staged computation, based on linear temporal logic (LTL) (e.g. (Davies, 1996;Feltman et al, 2016)). In these systems, the "next" modality of LTL is interpreted as a type of computations that may occur at the next stage of computation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive parallelism: getting your priorities right

Muller

Acar

Harper

2018

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-threaded programs have traditionally fallen into one of two domains: cooperative and competitive. These two domains have traditionally remained mostly disjoint, with cooperative threading used for increasing throughput in compute-intensive applications such as scientific workloads and cooperative threading used for increasing responsiveness in interactive applications such as GUIs and games. As multicore hardware becomes increasingly mainstream, there is a need for bridging these two disjoint worlds, because many applications mix interaction and computation and would benefit from both cooperative and competitive threading.In this paper, we present techniques for programming and reasoning about parallel interactive applications that can use both cooperative and competitive threading. Our techniques enable the programmer to write rich parallel interactive programs by creating and synchronizing with threads as needed, and by assigning threads user-defined and partially ordered priorities. To ensure important responsiveness properties, we present a modal type system analogous to S4 modal logic that precludes low-priority threads from delaying high-priority threads, thereby statically preventing a crucial set of priority-inversion bugs. We then present a cost model that allows reasoning about responsiveness and completion time of well-typed programs. The cost model extends the traditional work-span model for cooperative threading to account for competitive scheduling decisions needed to ensure responsiveness. Finally, we show that our proposed techniques are realistic by implementing them as an extension to the Standard ML language.

show abstract

“…For example, a stage 1 computation can create a stage 2 computation as a "black box" but cannot inspect that computation. We use a two-stage variant of the modality of Davies [19], similar to that of Feltman et al [23], which inspires some of our notation. One important difference between stages and the priorities of our work is that, in our work, computations belonging to different stages (priorities) can be evaluated concurrently, whereas in staged computations, evaluation proceeds monotonically in stage order.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsive parallel computation: bridging competitive and cooperative threading

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competitive and cooperative threading are widely used abstractions in computing. In competitive threading, threads are scheduled preemptively with the goal of minimizing response time, usually of interactive applications. In cooperative threading, threads are scheduled non-preemptively with the goal of maximizing throughput or minimizing the completion time, usually in compute-intensive applications, e.g. scientific computing, machine learning and AI. Although both of these forms of threading rely on the same abstraction of a thread, they have, to date, remained largely separate forms of computing. Motivated by the recent increase in the mainstream use of multicore computers, we propose a threading model that aims to unify competitive and cooperative threading. To this end, we extend the classic graph-based cost model for cooperative threading to allow for competitive threading, and describe how such a cost model may be used in a programming language by presenting a language and a corresponding cost semantics. Finally, we show that the cost model and the semantics are realizable by presenting an operational semantics for the language that specifies the behavior of an implementation, as well as an implementation and a small empirical evaluation. CCS Concepts • Software and its engineering → Parallel programming languages; Concurrent programming languages; Functional languages

show abstract

Automatically Splitting a Two-Stage Lambda Calculus

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Parallel complexity analysis with temporal session types

Parallel complexity analysis with temporal session types

Competitive parallelism: getting your priorities right

Responsive parallel computation: bridging competitive and cooperative threading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About