This is a non-technical introduction and motivation for RPython’s approach to Just-In-Time compiler generation.
Writing an interpreter for a complex dynamic language like Python is not a small task, especially if, for performance goals, we want to write a Just-in-Time (JIT) compiler too.
The good news is that it’s not what we did. We indeed wrote an interpreter for Python, but we never wrote any JIT compiler for Python in PyPy. Instead, we use the fact that our interpreter for Python is written in RPython, which is a nice, high-level language – and we turn it automatically into a JIT compiler for Python.
This transformation is of course completely transparent to the user, i.e. the programmer writing Python programs. The goal (which we achieved) is to support all Python features – including, for example, random frame access and debuggers. But it is also mostly transparent to the language implementor, i.e. to the source code of the Python interpreter. It only needs a bit of guidance: we had to put a small number of hints in the source code of our interpreter. Based on these hints, the JIT compiler generator produces a JIT compiler which has the same language semantics as the original interpreter by construction. This JIT compiler itself generates machine code at runtime, aggressively optimizing the user’s program and leading to a big performance boost, while keeping the semantics unmodified. Of course, the interesting bit is that our Python language interpreter can evolve over time without getting out of sync with the JIT compiler.
Our previous incarnations of PyPy’s JIT generator were based on partial evaluation. This is a well-known and much-researched topic, considered to be very promising. There have been many attempts to use it to automatically transform an interpreter into a compiler. However, none of them have lead to substantial speedups for real-world languages. We believe that the missing key insight is to use partial evaluation to produce just-in-time compilers, rather than classical ahead-of-time compilers. If this turns out to be correct, the practical speed of dynamic languages could be vastly improved.
The closest comparison to our current JIT is Tamarin’s TraceMonkey. However, this JIT compiler is written manually, which is quite some effort. Instead, we write a JIT generator at the level of RPython, which means that our final JIT does not have to – indeed, cannot – be written to encode all the details of the full Python language. These details are automatically supplied by the fact that we have an interpreter for full Python.
The JIT compilers that we generate use some techniques that are not in widespread use so far, but they are not exactly new either. The point we want to make here is not that we are pushing the theoretical limits of how fast a given dynamic language can be run. Our point is: we are making it practical to have reasonably good Just-In-Time compilers for all dynamic languages, no matter how complicated or non-widespread (e.g. Open Source dynamic languages without large industry or academic support, or internal domain-specific languages). By practical we mean that this should be:
- Easy: requires little more efforts than writing the interpreter in the first place.
- Maintainable: our generated JIT compilers are not separate projects (we do not generate separate source code, but only throw-away C code that is compiled into the generated VM). In other words, the whole JIT compiler is regenerated anew every time the high-level interpreter is modified, so that they cannot get out of sync no matter how fast the language evolves.
- Fast enough: we can get some rather good performance out of the generated JIT compilers. That’s the whole point, of course.
There are a large number of approaches to improving the execution speed of dynamic programming languages, most of which only produce small improvements and none offer the flexibility and customisability provided by our approach. Over the last 6 years of tweaking, the speed of CPython has only improved by a factor of 1.3 or 1.4 (depending on benchmarks). Many tweaks are applicable to PyPy as well. Indeed, some of the CPython tweaks originated as tweaks for PyPy.
IronPython initially achieved a speed of about 1.8 times that of CPython by leaving out some details of the language and by leveraging the large investment that Microsoft has put into making the .NET platform fast; the current, more complete implementation has roughly the same speed as CPython. In general, the existing approaches have reached the end of the road, speed-wise. Microsoft’s Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR), often cited in this context, is essentially only an API to make the techniques pioneered in IronPython official. At best, it will give another small improvement.
Another technique regularly mentioned is adding types to the language in order to speed it up: either explicit optional typing or soft typing (i.e., inferred “likely” types). For Python, all projects in this area have started with a simplified subset of the language; no project has scaled up to anything close to the complete language. This would be a major effort and be platform- and language-specific. Moreover maintenance would be a headache: we believe that many changes that are trivial to implement in CPython, are likely to invalidate previous carefully-tuned optimizations.
For major improvements in speed, JIT techniques are necessary. For Python, Psyco gives typical speedups of 2 to 4 times - up to 100 times in algorithmic examples. It has come to a dead end because of the difficulty and huge costs associated with developing and maintaining it. It has a relatively poor encoding of language semantics - knowledge about Python behavior needs to be encoded by hand and kept up-to-date. At least, Psyco works correctly even when encountering one of the numerous Python constructs it does not support, by falling back to CPython. The PyPy JIT started out as a metaprogrammatic, non-language-specific equivalent of Psyco.
A different kind of prior art are self-hosting JIT compilers such as Jikes. Jikes is a JIT compiler for Java written in Java. It has a poor encoding of language semantics; it would take an enormous amount of work to encode all the details of a Python-like language directly into a JIT compiler. It also has limited portability, which is an issue for Python; it is likely that large parts of the JIT compiler would need retargetting in order to run in a different environment than the intended low-level one.
Simply reusing an existing well-tuned JIT like that of the JVM does not really work, because of concept mismatches between the implementor’s language and the host VM language: the former needs to be compiled to the target environment in such a way that the JIT is able to speed it up significantly - an approach which essentially has failed in Python so far: even though CPython is a simple interpreter, its Java and .NET re-implementations are not significantly faster.
More recently, several larger projects have started in the JIT area. For instance, Sun Microsystems is investing in JRuby, which aims to use the Java Hotspot JIT to improve the performance of Ruby. However, this requires a lot of hand crafting and will only provide speedups for one language on one platform. Some issues are delicate, e.g., how to remove the overhead of constantly boxing and unboxing, typical in dynamic languages. An advantage compared to PyPy is that there are some hand optimizations that can be performed, that do not fit in the metaprogramming approach. But metaprogramming makes the PyPy JIT reusable for many different languages on many different execution platforms. It is also possible to combine the approaches - we can get substantial speedups using our JIT and then feed the result to Java’s Hotspot JIT for further improvement. One of us is even a member of the JSR 292 Expert Group to define additions to the JVM to better support dynamic languages, and is contributing insights from our JIT research, in ways that will also benefit PyPy.