[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-56908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gengliang Wang updated SPARK-56908:
-----------------------------------
Description:
Whole-stage codegen generates a fresh Java class per stage. Across many
operators the generated source contains (a) boilerplate that is
type-independent across stages and can be deduplicated into static Java
helpers, and (b) branches or variables that are statically dead at codegen time
but emitted anyway.
These patterns cost us in three places:
- JVM 64KB method-size and constant-pool limits, which force interpreted
fallback on deep query plans.
- Janino compile time per stage.
- JIT compile work (each stage class has its own bodies).
This umbrella tracks small, behavior-preserving cleanups across the generated
Java to address these issues. Each subtask is independently PR-able; behavior
is preserved end-to-end and verified by the relevant operator's existing test
suite with {{spark.sql.codegen.wholeStage}} forced both on and off.
h3. Scope guidance (when is a dead-branch / simplification subtask worth it?)
Not every statically-dead branch is worth eliminating. We measured the payoff
on real generated code (TPC-DS whole-stage codegen): Janino compile time is
~linear in generated source (~0.36 ms/KB), and Janino constant-folds {{if
(true)}} / {{if (false)}}, so there is *no bytecode change* and no JIT/runtime
benefit. For a pattern that occurs only a handful of times, the source-only
saving is below the run-to-run compile-time noise floor (~0.7%).
Therefore a subtask that adds branching/complexity to the codegen logic to skip
a dead branch is only justified when:
- (a) the pattern is *frequent* in real generated code -- verify against e.g.
the TPC-DS whole-stage codegen dumps, as SPARK-57198 did (the dead {{if (100.0D
== 0)}} check appeared 56 times across 14 TPC-DS queries); or
- (b) it removes more than source text -- e.g. an unreachable {{references[]}}
/ constant-pool entry (SPARK-57198), or it keeps generated methods under the
64KB / constant-pool limits.
Trivial, infrequent dead-branch removals add codegen-logic complexity for
negligible benefit and should be dropped rather than merged.
was:
Whole-stage codegen generates a fresh Java class per stage. Across many
operators the generated source contains (a) boilerplate that is
type-independent across stages and can be deduplicated into static Java
helpers, and (b) branches or variables that are statically dead at codegen time
but emitted anyway.
These patterns cost us in three places:
- JVM 64KB method-size and constant-pool limits, which force interpreted
fallback on deep query plans.
- Janino compile time per stage.
- JIT compile work (each stage class has its own bodies).
This umbrella tracks small, behavior-preserving cleanups across the generated
Java to address these issues. Each subtask is independently PR-able; behavior
is preserved end-to-end and verified by the relevant operator's existing test
suite with {{spark.sql.codegen.wholeStage}} forced both on and off.
> Reduce generated Java size in whole-stage codegen
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-56908
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-56908
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Umbrella
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 4.3.0
> Reporter: Gengliang Wang
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> Whole-stage codegen generates a fresh Java class per stage. Across many
> operators the generated source contains (a) boilerplate that is
> type-independent across stages and can be deduplicated into static Java
> helpers, and (b) branches or variables that are statically dead at codegen
> time but emitted anyway.
> These patterns cost us in three places:
> - JVM 64KB method-size and constant-pool limits, which force interpreted
> fallback on deep query plans.
> - Janino compile time per stage.
> - JIT compile work (each stage class has its own bodies).
> This umbrella tracks small, behavior-preserving cleanups across the generated
> Java to address these issues. Each subtask is independently PR-able; behavior
> is preserved end-to-end and verified by the relevant operator's existing test
> suite with {{spark.sql.codegen.wholeStage}} forced both on and off.
> h3. Scope guidance (when is a dead-branch / simplification subtask worth it?)
> Not every statically-dead branch is worth eliminating. We measured the payoff
> on real generated code (TPC-DS whole-stage codegen): Janino compile time is
> ~linear in generated source (~0.36 ms/KB), and Janino constant-folds {{if
> (true)}} / {{if (false)}}, so there is *no bytecode change* and no
> JIT/runtime benefit. For a pattern that occurs only a handful of times, the
> source-only saving is below the run-to-run compile-time noise floor (~0.7%).
> Therefore a subtask that adds branching/complexity to the codegen logic to
> skip a dead branch is only justified when:
> - (a) the pattern is *frequent* in real generated code -- verify against e.g.
> the TPC-DS whole-stage codegen dumps, as SPARK-57198 did (the dead {{if
> (100.0D == 0)}} check appeared 56 times across 14 TPC-DS queries); or
> - (b) it removes more than source text -- e.g. an unreachable
> {{references[]}} / constant-pool entry (SPARK-57198), or it keeps generated
> methods under the 64KB / constant-pool limits.
> Trivial, infrequent dead-branch removals add codegen-logic complexity for
> negligible benefit and should be dropped rather than merged.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
