Performance comparison between Java and JNI for optimal implementation of computational micro-kernels

General purpose CPUs used in high performance computing (HPC) support a vector instruction set and an out-of-order engine dedicated to increase the instruction level parallelism. Hence, related optimizations are currently critical to improve the performance of applications requiring numerical computation. Moreover, the use of a Java run-time environment such as the HotSpot Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in high performance computing is a promising alternative. It benefits from its programming flexibility, productivity and the performance is ensured by the Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler. Though, the JIT compiler suffers from two main drawbacks. First, the JIT is a black box for developers. We have no control over the generated code nor any feedback from its optimization phases like vectorization. Secondly, the time constraint narrows down the degree of optimization compared to static compilers like GCC or LLVM. So, it is compelling to use statically compiled code since it benefits from additional optimization reducing performance bottlenecks. Java enables to call native code from dynamic libraries through the Java Native Interface (JNI). Nevertheless, JNI methods are not inlined and require an additional cost to be invoked compared to Java ones. Therefore, to benefit from better static optimization, this call overhead must be leveraged by the amount of computation performed at each JNI invocation. In this paper we tackle this problem and we propose to do this analysis for a set of micro-kernels. Our goal is to select the most efficient implementation considering the amount of computation defined by the calling context. We also investigate the impact on performance of several different optimization schemes which are vectorization, out-of-order optimization, data alignment, method inlining and the use of native memory for JNI methods.Comment: Part of ADAPT Workshop proceedings, 2015 (arXiv:1412.2347

Automation of the Continuous Integration (CI) - Continuous Delivery/Deployment (CD) Software Development

Continuous Integration (CI) is a practice in software development where developers periodically merge code changes in a central shared repository, after which automatic versions and tests are executed. CI entails an automation component (the target of this project) and a cultural one, as developers have to learn to integrate code periodically. The main goal of CI is to reduce the time to feedback over the software integration process, allowing to locate and fix bugs more easily and quickly, thus enhancing it quality while reducing the time to validate and publish new soIn traditional software development, where teams of developers worked on the same project in isolation, often led to problems integrating the resulting code. Due to this isolation, the project was not deliverable until the integration of all its parts, which was tedious and generated errors. The Continuous Integration (CI ) emerged as a practice to solve the problems of traditional methodology, with the aim of improving the quality of the code. This thesis sets out what is it and how Continuous Integration is achieved, the principles that makes it as effective as possible and the processes that follow as a consequence, to thus introduce the context of its objective: the creation of a system that automates the start-up and set-up of an environment to be able to apply the methodology of continuous integration

Mobile application platform heterogeneity: Android vs Windows phone vs iOS vs Firefox OS

Modern smartphones have a rich spectrum of increasingly sophisticated features, opening opportunities for software-led innovation. Of the large number of platforms to develop new software on, in this paper we look closely at three platforms identified as market leaders for the smartphone market by Gartner Group in 2013 and one platform, Firefox OS, representing a new paradigm for operating systems based on web technologies. We compare the platforms in several different categories, such as software architecture, application development, platform capabilities and constraints, and, finally, developer support. Using the implementation of a mobile version of the tic-tac-toe game on all the four platforms, we seek to investigate strengths, weaknesses and challenges of mobile application development on these platforms. Big differences are highlighted when inspecting community environments, hardware abilities and platform maturity. These inevitably impact upon developer choices when deciding on mobile platform development strategies