Difference between revisions of "Bytecode for transfer"
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
=== Using it in a language pair === |
=== Using it in a language pair === |
||
Add an entry to modes.xml where you replace "apertium-transfer" with "apertium-transfer-j" and use the .class file instead |
Add an entry to modes.xml where you replace "apertium-transfer" with "apertium-transfer-j" and use the .class file instead of the .t1x file. |
||
For example, replace |
For example, replace |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Now you can compile manually with |
Now you can compile manually with |
||
$ apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j apertium-eo-en.eo-en.t1x eo-en.t1x.class |
$ apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j apertium-eo-en.eo-en.t1x eo-en.t1x.class |
||
=== Adding it to your Makefile === |
=== Adding it to your Makefile === |
Revision as of 23:39, 16 September 2011
Currently transfer is the bottleneck in Apertium, processing here takes 95% CPU. This is because the transfer file is being interpreted (tree walking of the XML in the transfer t1x file) instead of being compiled into machine code.
The Java transfer bytecode compiler converts arbitrarily complex transfer files into Java source code, which is then compiled into platform-indepent bytecode.
During transfer the Java Virtual Machine will convert the most used part (the 'hot spots') into machine code.
This enables
- Faster transfer (currently factor 5). As startup times are higher by 0.33 seconds this is only feasible when processing more than 100 sentences (2000 words).
- Debuggable transfer. Using a Java development tool, for example Netbeans, you can step thru the transfer code line-by-line, inspecting variables and see exactly what is happening
- Validating transfer files
A concrete example: Esperanto-English
Take a look at apertium-eo-en.eo-en.t1x and apertium_eo_en_eo_en_t1x.java (the same file converted into Java). The Java version is compiled into bytecode and executed with the Java JVM and JIT (Just-in-time) compiler which converts it into machine code during run-time.
Here is a speed comparison on a corpus (testdata/transfer/transferinput-en-eo.t1x.txt - 20000 sentences, 423215 words 7527866 bytes).
Interpreted transfer took 91.59 secs bytecode compiled transfer took 15.88 secs Speedup factor: 5.76
Using it
First, compile the t1x to bytecode:
$ apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j file.t1x file.class
Then replace 'apertium-transfer file.t1x' with 'apertium-transfer-j file.class'.
Using it in a language pair
Add an entry to modes.xml where you replace "apertium-transfer" with "apertium-transfer-j" and use the .class file instead of the .t1x file.
For example, replace
<program name="apertium-transfer"> <file name="apertium-eo-en.eo-en.t1x"/> <file name="eo-en.t1x.bin"/> <file name="eo-en.autobil.bin"/> </program>
with
<program name="apertium-transfer-j"> <file name="eo-en.t1x.class"/> <file name="eo-en.t1x.bin"/> <file name="eo-en.autobil.bin"/> </program>
Now you can compile manually with
$ apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j apertium-eo-en.eo-en.t1x eo-en.t1x.class
Adding it to your Makefile
You can also add optional support for bytecode compilation to Makefile.am:
Under the lines
$(PREFIX1).t1x.bin: $(BASENAME).$(PREFIX1).t1x apertium-validate-transfer $(BASENAME).$(PREFIX1).t1x apertium-preprocess-transfer $(BASENAME).$(PREFIX1).t1x $@
Add
@if [ "`which apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j`" == "" ]; then echo && echo "NOTE: lttoolbox-java (used for bytecode accelerated transfer) is missing" && echo " Therefore the following will fail (but it's OK)" && echo; fi -apertium-preprocess-transfer-bytecode-j $(BASENAME).$(PREFIX1).t1x $(PREFIX1).t1x.class
If lttoolbox-java isnt installed a warning is emitted and compilation continues (so things still work).
Remember to do the same for $(PREFIX2).
See http://apertium.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/apertium?view=rev&revision=21146 for a complete example of the changes.
Further work
- The Java code have not been optimized for speed, so perhaps the real potential speedup is 6-8, or even a higher factor, if using a mixed mode (mixing C and Java code instead of doing pure-Java).
- Memory usage is also higher than really needed. I.a.
- The underlying library, lttoolbox-java, is using 50% of the CPU, and there are some well known performance issues which are fixable
- The bytecode should be pulled thru an optimizer, like Soot
- There is a zillion of Open Source Java bytecode interpreters to choose from, most prominent Sun's own and http://kaffe.org. Only Sun's have been tested. At least GCJ should be tried out.
- A step for post-compiling to native code should be tried out.
- With http://xmlvm.org/ there could be a way for iPhones as well
- Considering that we have a full port lttoolbox, Apertium could be made to run purely on Java, enabling a wide range of platforms, i.a. Windows, phones (J2ME or Android), web pages, server systems. Only the tagger is missing for a full system.