source: docs/EuroPar2011/europar-cameron.tex @ 900

Last change on this file since 900 was 900, checked in by cameron, 8 years ago

Fred's latest changes.

File size: 41.4 KB
Line 
1
2
3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file typeinst.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4%
5% This is the LaTeX source for the instructions to authors using
6% the LaTeX document class 'llncs.cls' for contributions to
7% the Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences series.
8% http://www.springer.com/lncs       Springer Heidelberg 2006/05/04
9%
10% It may be used as a template for your own input - copy it
11% to a new file with a new name and use it as the basis
12% for your article.
13%
14% NB: the document class 'llncs' has its own and detailed documentation, see
15% ftp://ftp.springer.de/data/pubftp/pub/tex/latex/llncs/latex2e/llncsdoc.pdf
16%
17%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18
19
20\documentclass[runningheads,a4paper]{llncs}
21\usepackage{multirow}
22\usepackage{amssymb}
23\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
24\usepackage{graphicx}
25
26\usepackage{url}
27\urldef{\mailsa}\path|{alfred.hofmann, ursula.barth, ingrid.haas, frank.holzwarth,|
28\urldef{\mailsb}\path|anna.kramer, leonie.kunz, christine.reiss, nicole.sator,|
29\urldef{\mailsc}\path|erika.siebert-cole, peter.strasser, lncs}@springer.com|   
30\newcommand{\keywords}[1]{\par\addvspace\baselineskip
31\noindent\keywordname\enspace\ignorespaces#1}
32
33\begin{document}
34
35\mainmatter  % start of an individual contribution
36
37
38
39
40% first the title is needed
41\title{Parallel Scanning with Bitstream Addition: An XML Case Study}
42
43% a short form should be given in case it is too long for the running head
44\titlerunning{Parallel Scanning with Bitstream Addition}
45
46% the name(s) of the author(s) follow(s) next
47%
48% NB: Chinese authors should write their first names(s) in front of
49% their surnames. This ensures that the names appear correctly in
50% the running heads and the author index.
51%
52\author{Robert D. Cameron
53%\thanks{}
54\and Ehsan Amiri \and Kenneth S. Herdy \and Dan Lin \and Thomas C. Shermer \and Fred P. Popowich}
55
56%
57\authorrunning{Cameron {\em et al}}
58
59% the affiliations are given next; don't give your e-mail address
60% unless you accept that it will be published
61\institute{Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada\\
62\email{\{cameron, eamiri, ksherdy, lindanl, shermer, popowich\}@cs.sfu.ca}
63}
64
65\maketitle
66
67
68\begin{abstract}
69A parallel scanning method using the concept of bitstream addition is
70introduced and studied in application to the problem of XML
71parsing and well-formedness checking.   
72% The method parallelizes
73% finite-state transitions, using carry propagation to achieve up
74% to $W$ transitions with each $W$-bit binary addition operation.
75On processors supporting $W$-bit addition operations,
76the method can perform up to $W$ finite state transitions per instruction.
77The method is based on the concept of parallel bitstream technology,
78in which parallel streams of bits are formed such that each stream
79comprises bits in one-to-one correspondence with the character
80code units of a source data stream.    Parsing routines are initially
81prototyped in Python using its native support for unbounded
82integers to represent arbitrary-length  bitstreams.  A compiler
83then translates the Python code into low-level C-based implementations.
84These low-level implementations take advantage of
85the SIMD (single-instruction multiple-data) capabilities of commodity
86processors to yield a dramatic speed-up over
87traditional alternatives employing byte-at-a-time parsing.
88%\keywords{SIMD text processing, parallel bitstream technology, XML, parsing}
89\keywords{SIMD text processing, parallel bitstreams, XML, parsing}
90\end{abstract}
91
92
93\section{Introduction}
94
95Although the finite state machine methods used
96in the scanning and parsing of text streams is considered to be the
97hardest of the ``13 dwarves'' to parallelize \cite{Asanovic:EECS-2006-183},
98parallel bitstream technology shows considerable promise for these
99%types of applications\cite{PPoPP08,CameronHerdyLin2008,Green2009}.
100types of applications \cite{PPoPP08,CameronHerdyLin2008,Green2009}.
101In this approach, character streams are processed $N$ positions at
102a time using the $N$-bit SIMD registers commonly found on commodity
103processors (e.g., 128-bit XMM registers on Intel/AMD chips). 
104This is achieved by first slicing the byte streams into eight separate
105basis bitstreams, one for each bit position within the byte. 
106These basis bitstreams are then combined with bitwise logic and
107shifting operations to compute further parallel bit streams of
108interest, such as the \verb:[<]: bit stream marking the position
109of all opening angle brackets in an XML document.
110
111Using these techniques as well as the {\em bit scan} 
112instructions also available on commodity processors, the
113Parabix 1 XML parser was shown to considerably accelerate XML
114% parsing in comparison with conventional byte-at-a-time parser
115parsing in comparison with conventional byte-at-a-time parsers
116in applications such as statistics gathering \cite{CameronHerdyLin2008} and
117as GML to SVG conversion \cite{Herdy2008}
118Other efforts to accelerate XML parsing include the use of custom
119XML chips \cite{Leventhal2009}, FPGAs \cite{DaiNiZhu2010}, and
120multithread/multicore speedups based on fast preparsing \cite{ZhangPanChiu09}.
121
122In this paper, we further increase the parallelism in our methods
123by introducing a new parallel scanning primitive using bitstream
124addition.   In essence, this primitive replaces the sequential bit
125scan operations underlying Parabix 1 with a new approach that
126independently advances multiple marker bits in parallel using
127simple addition and logic operations.   This paper documents the
128technique and evaluates it in application to the problem of XML
129parsing and well-formedness checking.
130
131Section 2 reviews the basics of parallel bitstream technology
132and introduces our new parallel scanning primitive.  Section 3
133goes on to show how this primitive may be used in XML scanning
134and parsing, while Section 4 discusses the construction of a
135complete XML well-formedness checker based on these techniques.
136Section 5 then briefly describes the compiler technology used to
137generate the low level code for our approach.  A performance
138study in Section 6 shows that the new Parabix 2 parser is
139dramatically faster than traditional byte-at-a-time parsers
140as well as the original Parabix 1 parser, particularly for
141dense XML markup.  Section 7 concludes the paper.
142
143
144% The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
145% Section 2 reviews the basics of parallel bitstream technology
146% and introduces our new parallel scanning primitive.
147% Section 3 illustrates how this primitive may be used
148% in the lexical processing of XML references including the
149% parallel identification of errors.   Section 4 goes on
150% to consider the more complex task of XML tag processing
151% that goes beyond mere tokenization.
152% Building on these methods, Section 5 describes how to
153% construct a
154% complete solution to the problem of XML parsing and
155% well-formedness checking, in order
156% to gauge the applicability and power of the techniques.
157% Section \ref{sec:compile} then considers
158% the translation of high-level operations on unbounded bitstreams into
159% equivalent low-level code using SIMD intrinsics in the C programming
160% language.
161% Performance results are presented in section 7, comparing
162% the results of our generated implementations in comparison with
163% a number of existing alternatives.
164% The paper concludes with
165% comments on the current status of the work and directions for
166% further research.
167
168\section{The Parallel Bitstream Method}\label{sec:parabit}
169
170\begin{figure}[b]
171\begin{center}
172\begin{tabular}{cr}\\
173source data $\vartriangleleft$ & \verb`----173942---654----1----49731----321--`\\
174$B_7$ & \verb`.......................................`\\
175$B_6$ & \verb`.......................................`\\
176$B_5$ & \verb`111111111111111111111111111111111111111`\\
177$B_4$ & \verb`....111111...111....1....11111....111..`\\
178$B_3$ & \verb`1111...1..111...1111.1111.1...1111...11`\\
179$B_2$ & \verb`1111.1..1.1111111111.11111.1..1111...11`\\
180$B_1$ & \verb`.....11..1...1.............11.....11...`\\
181$B_0$ & \verb`11111111..111.1.111111111.111111111.111`\\
182\verb:[0-9]: & \verb`....111111...111....1....11111....111..`\\
183\end{tabular}
184\end{center}
185\caption{Basis and Character-Class Bitstreams}
186\label{fig:inputstreams}
187\end{figure}
188
189\subsection{Fundamentals}
190
191A bitstream is simply a sequence of $0$s and $1$s, where there is one such bit in the bitstream for each character in a source data stream.
192For parsing, and other text processing tasks, we need to consider multiple properties of characters at different stages during the parsing process. A bitstream can be associated with each of these properties, and hence there will be multiple (parallel) bitstreams associated with a source data stream of characters.
193
194The starting point for bitstream methods are \emph{basis} bitstreams
195and their use in determining \emph{character-class} bitstreams.
196The $k$th basis bitstream $B_k$ consists of the $k$th bit (0-based, starting at the the least significant bit)
197of each character in the source data stream;
198thus each $B_k$ is dependent on the encoding of the source characters (ASCII, UTF-8, UTF-16, etc.).
199Given these basis bitstreams, it is then possible to combine them
200using bitwise logic in order to compute character-class
201bitstreams, that is, streams that identify the positions at which characters belonging
202to a particular class occur.  For example, the character class bitstream
203$D=$\verb:[0-9]: marks with $1$s the positions at which decimal digits
204occur.    These bitstreams are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:inputstreams},
205for an example source data stream consisting of digits and hyphens.
206This figure also illustrates some of our conventions for figures:  the left triangle $\vartriangleleft$ after
207``source data'' indicates that all streams are read from right to left
208(i.e., they are in little-endian notation).  We also use hyphens
209in the input stream represent any character that is not relevant to a character
210class under consideration, so that relevant characters stand out.
211Furthermore, the $0$ bits in the bitstreams are represented by periods,
212so that the $1$ bits stand out.
213
214
215Transposition of source data to basis bitstreams and calculation
216of character-class streams in this way is an overhead on parallel bit
217stream applications, in general.   However, using the SIMD
218capabilities of current commodity processors, these operations are quite
219fast, with an amortized overhead of about 1 CPU cycle per byte for
220transposition and less than 1 CPU cycle per byte for all the character
221classes needed for XML parsing \cite{CameronHerdyLin2008}.
222%Improved instruction sets using parallel extract operations or
223%inductive doubling techniques may further reduce this overhead significantly \cite{CameronLin2009,HilewitzLee2006}.
224
225Beyond the bitwise logic needed for character class determination,
226we also need \emph{upshifting} to deal with sequential combination.
227The upshift $n(S)$ of a bitstream $S$ is obtained by shifting the bits in $S$ one position forward,
228then placing a $0$ bit in the starting position of the bitstream; $n$ is meant to be mnemonic of ``next''.
229In $n(S)$, the last bit of $S$ may be eliminated or retained for error-testing purposes.
230
231\subsection{A Parallel Scanning Primitive}
232
233In this section, we introduce the principal new feature of the paper,
234a parallel scanning method based on bitstream addition.   Key to this
235method is the concept of {\em marker} bitstreams. 
236Marker bitstreams are used to represent positions of interest in the
237scanning or parsing of a source data stream.
238The appearance of a 1 at a position in a marker bitstream could, for example, denote
239the starting position of an XML tag in the data stream.   In general, the set of
240bit positions in a marker bitstream may be considered to be the current
241parsing positions of multiple parses taking place in parallel throughout
242the source data stream.
243
244Figure \ref{fig:scan1} illustrates the basic concept
245underlying parallel parsing with bitstream addition.
246All streams are shown in little-endian
247representation, with streams reading from right-to-left.
248The first row shows a source data stream that includes several
249spans of digits, together with other nondigit characters shown
250as hyphens.  The second row specifies the parsing problem
251using a marker bitstream $M_0$ to mark four initial marker
252positions.  In three instances, these markers are at
253the beginning (i.e., little end) of a span, while one is in
254the middle of a span.
255The parallel parsing task is to move each
256of the four markers forward (to the left) through the corresponding spans of
257digits to the immediately following positions.
258
259\begin{figure}[tbh]
260\begin{center}
261\begin{tabular}{cr}\\
262source data $\vartriangleleft$ & \verb`----173942---654----1----49731----321--`\\
263$M_0$ & \verb`.........1.....1....1......1...........`\\
264$D = $\verb:[0-9]: & \verb`....111111...111....1....11111....111..`\\
265$M_0 + D$ & \verb`...1........1......1....1...11....111..`\\
266$M_1 = (M_0 + D) \wedge \neg D$ & \verb`...1........1......1....1..............`
267\end{tabular}
268
269
270\end{center}
271\caption{Parallel Scan Using Bitstream Addition and Mask}
272\label{fig:scan1}
273\end{figure}
274
275The third row of Figure \ref{fig:scan1}
276shows the derived character-class bitstream $D$ identifying
277positions of all digits in the source stream. 
278The fourth row then illustrates the key concept: marker movement
279is achieved by binary addition of the marker and character
280class bitstreams.  As a marker 1 bit is combined using binary addition to
281a span of 1s, each 1 in the span becomes 0, generating
282a carry to add to the next position to the left.
283For each such span, the process terminates at the left end
284of the span, generating a 1 bit in the immediately
285following position.   These generated 1 bits represent
286the moved marker bits.   However, the result of the
287addition also produces some additional bits that are
288not involved in the scan operation.   
289However, these are easily removed as shown in the fifth row,
290by applying bitwise logic to mask
291off any bits from the digit bitstream; these can never
292be marker positions resulting from a scan.
293The addition and masking technique allows matching of
294the regular expression \verb:[0-9]*: for any reasonable
295(conflict-free) set of initial markers specified in $M_0$.
296
297
298% The addition and masking technique allows matching of
299% the regular expression \verb:[0-9]*: for any reasonable
300% (conflict-free) set of initial markers specified in $M_0$.
301% A conflict occurs when a span from one marker would run
302% into another marker position.   However, such conflicts
303% do not occur with the normal methods of marker bitstream
304% formation, in which unique syntactic features of
305% the input stream are used to specify the initial marker
306% positions.
307
308In the remainder of this paper, the notation $s(M, C)$
309denotes the operation to scan
310from an initial set of marker positions $M$ through
311the spans of characters belonging to a character class $C$ found at each position.
312\[s(M, C) = (M_0 + C)  \wedge \neg C\]
313
314
315\section{XML Scanning and Parsing}
316\label{sec:errorstream}
317
318We now consider how the parallel scanning primitive can
319be applied to the following problems in scanning and
320parsing of XML structures:  (1) parallel scanning of XML decimal character references,
321and (2) parallel parsing of XML start tags.
322The grammar of these structures is shown in Figure \ref{fig:xmlgrmr}.
323
324\begin{figure}[tbh]
325\begin{center}
326\begin{tabular}{rcl}
327DecRef & ::=   &        '\verb:&#:' Digit+ '\verb:;:'  \\
328Digit  & ::=   &         \verb:[0-9]:\\
329STag         &  ::=   &        '\verb:<:' Name (WS  Attribute)* WS? '\verb:>:'  \\
330Attribute & ::=   &        Name WS? '=' WS? AttValue \\
331AttValue  &           ::=   &        `\verb:":' \verb:[^<"]*: `\verb:":' $|$ ``\verb:':'' \verb:[^<']*: ``\verb:':'' \\
332%DQuoted & ::= & \verb:[^<"]*:  \\
333%SQuoted & ::= & \verb:[^<']*:
334\end{tabular}
335\end{center}
336\caption{XML Grammar: Decimal Character References and Start Tags}
337\label{fig:xmlgrmr}
338\end{figure}
339
340\begin{figure}[b]
341\begin{center}
342\begin{tabular}{l@{}lr}\\
343\multicolumn{2}{l}{source data $\vartriangleright$}     
344                                         & \verb`-&#978;-&9;--&#;--&#13!-`\\
345$M_0$ &                                  & \verb`.1......1....1....1.....`\\
346$M_1$ & $ = n(M_0)$                      & \verb`..1......1....1....1....`\\
347$E_0$ & $ = M_1 \wedge \neg $\verb:[#]:  & \verb`.........1..............`\\
348$M_2$ & $ = n(M_1 \wedge \neg  E_0)$     & \verb`...1...........1....1...`\\
349$E_1$ & $ = M_2 \wedge \neg  D$          & \verb`...............1........`\\
350$M_3$ & $ = s(M_2 \wedge \neg  E_1, D)$  & \verb`......1...............1.`\\
351$E_2$ & $ = M_3 \wedge \neg  $\verb:[;]: & \verb`......................1.`\\
352$M_4$ & $ = M_3 \wedge \neg  E_2$        & \verb`......1.................`\\
353$E $  & $= E_0 \, | \, E_1 \, | \, E_2$  & \verb`.........1.....1......1.`
354\end{tabular}
355\end{center}
356\caption{Parsing Decimal References}
357\label{fig:decref}
358\end{figure}
359
360Figure \ref{fig:decref} shows the parallel parsing of
361decimal references together with error checking.
362The source data includes four instances of potential
363decimal references beginning with the \verb:&: character.
364Of these, only the first one is legal according to
365the decimal reference syntax, the other three instances
366are in error.   These references may be parsed in
367parallel as follows.  The
368starting marker bitstream $M_0$ is formed from the \verb:[&]:
369character-class bitstream as shown in the second row.  The next row shows the
370result of the marker advance operation $n(M_0)$ to
371produce the new marker bitstream $M_1$.  At this point,
372a hash mark is required, so the first error bitstream $E_0$ is
373formed using a bitwise ``and'' operation combined with negation,
374to indicate violations of this condition.
375Marker bitstream $M_2$ is then defined as those positions
376immediately following any $M_1$ positions not in error.
377In the following row, the condition that at least
378one digit is required is checked to produce error bitstream $E_1$.
379A parallel scan operation is then applied through the
380digit sequences as shown in the next row to produce
381marker bitstream $M_3$.  The final error bitstream $E_2$ is
382produced to identify any references without a
383closing semicolon.
384In the penultimate row, the final marker bitstream $M_4$ marks the
385positions of all fully-checked decimal references, while the
386last row defines a unified error bitstream $E$ 
387indicating the positions of all detected errors.
388
389
390One question that may arise is: how are marker bitstreams initialized?   In general,
391this is an important problem, and dependent on the task at hand.   
392In the XML parsing context,
393we rely on an important property of well-formed
394XML: after an initial filtering pass to identify
395XML comments, processing instructions and CDATA
396sections, every remaining \verb:<: in the
397file must be the initial character of a start,
398end or empty element tag, and every remaining \verb:&:
399must be the initial character of a general entity
400or character reference. These assumptions permit easy creation of
401marker bitstreams for XML tags and XML references.
402
403The parsing of XML start tags is a richer problem, involving
404sequential structure of attribute-value pairs as shown in Figure \ref{fig:xmlgrmr}.
405Using the bitstream addition technique, our method
406is to start with the opening angle bracket of all tags as
407the initial marker bitstream for parsing the tags in parallel,
408advance through the element name and then use an iterative
409process to move through attribute-value pairs.
410
411Figure \ref{fig:stag-ex}
412illustrates the parallel parsing of three XML start tags.
413The figure omits determination
414of error bitstreams, processing of single-quoted attribute values and handling
415of empty element tags, for simplicity.  In this figure, the first
416four rows show the source data and three character class bitstreams:
417$N$ for characters permitted in XML names,
418$W$ for whitespace characters,
419and $Q$ for characters permitted within a double-quoted attribute value string. 
420
421\begin{figure*}[tbh]
422\begin{center}\footnotesize
423
424\begin{tabular}{lr}\\
425source data $\vartriangleright$ & \verb`--<e a= "137">---<el2 a="17" a2="3379">---<x>--`\\
426$N = $ name chars & \verb`11.1.1...111..111.111.1..11..11..1111..111.1.11`\\
427$W = $ white space & \verb`....1..1.............1......1..................`\\
428$Q = \neg$\verb:[">]: & \verb`11.11111.111.1111.111111.11.1111.1111.1111.1111`\\
429\\
430$M_0$ & \verb`..1..............1........................1....`\\
431$M_1 = n(M_0)$ & \verb`...1..............1........................1...`\\
432$M_{0,7} = s(M_1, N)$ & \verb`....1................1......................1..`\\
433$M_{0,8} = s(M_{0,7}, W) \wedge \neg$\verb:[>]: & \verb`.....1................1........................`\\
434\\
435$M_{1,1} = s(M_{0,8}$ & \verb`......1................1.......................`\\
436$M_{1,2} = s(M_{1,1}, W) \wedge$\verb:[=]: & \verb`......1................1.......................`\\
437$M_{1,3} = n(M_{1,2})$ & \verb`.......1................1......................`\\
438$M_{1,4} = s({1,3}, W) \wedge$\verb:["]: & \verb`........1...............1......................`\\
439$M_{1,5} = n(M_{1,4})$ & \verb`.........1...............1.....................`\\
440$M_{1,6} = s(M_{1,5}, Q) \wedge$\verb:["]: & \verb`............1..............1...................`\\
441$M_{1,7} = n(M_{1,6})$ & \verb`.............1..............1..................`\\
442$M_{1,8} = s(M_{1,7}, W) \wedge \neg$\verb:[>]: & \verb`.............................1.................`\\
443\\
444$M_{2,1} = s(M_{1,8}, N)$ & \verb`...............................1...............`\\
445$M_{2,2} = s(M_{2,1}, W) \wedge$\verb:[=]: & \verb`...............................1...............`\\
446$M_{2,3} = n(M_{2,2})$ & \verb`................................1..............`\\
447$M_{2,4} = s(M_{2,3}, W) \wedge$\verb:["]: & \verb`................................1..............`\\
448$M_{2,5} = n(M_{2,4})$ & \verb`.................................1.............`\\
449$M_{2,6} = s(M_{2,5}, Q) \wedge$\verb:["]: & \verb`.....................................1.........`\\
450$M_{2,7} = n(M_{2,6})$ & \verb`......................................1........`\\
451$M_{2,8} = s(M_{2,7}, W) \wedge \neg$\verb:[>]: & \verb`...............................................`
452\end{tabular}
453\end{center}
454\caption{Start Tag Parsing}
455\label{fig:stag-ex}
456\end{figure*}
457
458
459The parsing process is illustrated in the remaining rows of the
460figure.    Each successive row shows the set of parsing markers as they
461advance in parallel using bitwise logic and addition.
462Overall, the sets of marker transitions can be divided into three groups.
463
464The first group
465$M_0$ through $M_{0,8}$ shows the initiation of parsing for each of the
466 tags through the
467opening angle brackets and  the element names, up to the first
468attribute name, if present.  Note that the there are no attribute names
469in the final tag shown, so the corresponding marker becomes zeroed
470out at the closing angle bracket.
471Since $M_{0,8}$ is not all $0$s, the parsing continues.
472
473The second group of marker transitions
474$M_{1,1}$ through $M_{1,8}$ deal with the parallel parsing of the first attribute-value
475pair of the remaining tags.
476After these operations, there are no more attributes
477in the first tag, so its corresponding marker becomes zeroed out.
478However, $M_{1, 8}$ is not all $0$s, as the second tag still has an unparsed attribute-value pair.
479Thus, the parsing continues.
480
481The third group of marker transitions $M_{2,1}$ through $M_{2,8}$ deal with the parsing of
482the second attribute-value pair of this tag.  The
483final transition to $M_{2,8}$ shows the zeroing out of all remaining markers
484once two iterations of attribute-value processing have taken place.
485Since $M_{2,8}$ is all $0$s, start tag parsing stops.
486
487The implementation of start tag processing uses a while loop that
488terminates when the set of active markers becomes zero,
489i.e.\  when some $M_{k, 8} = 0$.
490Considered
491as an iteration over unbounded bitstreams, all start tags in the document
492are processed in parallel, using a number of iterations equal to the maximum
493number of attribute-value pairs in any one tag in the document.   
494However, in block-by-block processing, the cost of iteration is considerably reduced; the iteration for
495each block only requires as many steps as there are attribute-value pairs
496overlapping the block.
497
498
499
500
501%\subsection{Name Scans}
502%To illustrate the scanning of the name found in an XML start tag,
503%let us consider a sequence that might be found in an HTML file,
504%\verb:<div id="myid">:,
505%which is shown as the source data stream in Figure \ref{fig:stag-scan}.
506
507%\begin{figure}[tbh]
508%\begin{center}
509%\begin{tabular}{cr}\\
510%source data & \verb:<div id="myid">:\\
511%$M_0$ & \verb`1..............`\\
512%$C_0$ & \verb`.111.11...1111.`\\
513%$M_1 = n(M_0)$ & \verb`.1.............`\\
514%$M_2 = s(M_1, D_0) \wedge \neg C_0$ & \verb`....1.........`\\
515%lastline & \verb`...............`
516%\end{tabular}
517%\end{center}
518%\caption{Scanning Names}
519%\label{fig:stag-scan}
520%\end{figure}
521
522%If we set our initial marker bitstream according to the procedure outlined in our discussion of marker bitstream initialization, we %obtain the bitstream $M_0$.
523%According to the grammar in Figure \ref{fig:stag-grmr}, we can then look for a \verb:Name: in an \verb:STag: after we have found a %5\verb:<:.
524%So, $M_1$ is the marker bitstream for the starting position of our name.
525%Although we do not know the length of the name, the $C_0$ bit vector can easily be set to $1$ for the characters that can be contained %in a name.
526%We can then use the scan function in a manner similar to how it was used in Figure \ref{fig:scan2} to scan through the entire name to %identify its end position.
527
528Following the pattern shown here, the remaining syntactic
529features of XML markup can similarly be parsed with
530bitstream based methods.   One complexity is that the
531parsing of comments,
532CDATA sections and processing instructions must be
533performed first to determine those regions of text
534within which ordinary XML markups are not parsed (i.e.,
535within each of these types of construct.   This is handled
536by first performance the parsing of these structures and
537then forming a {\em mask bitstream}, that is, a stream that
538identifies spans of text to be excluded from parsing
539(comment and CDATA interiors, parameter text to processing instructions).
540
541
542\section{XML Well-Formedness}
543
544In this section, we consider the full application of the parsing techniques
545of the previous section to the problem of XML well-formedness checking \cite{TR:XML}.
546% This application is useful as a well-defined and commercially significant
547% example to assess the overall applicability of parallel bitstream techniques.
548% To what extent can the well-formedness requirements of XML be
549% completely discharged using parallel bitstream techniques?
550% Are those techniques worthwhile in every instance, or
551% do better alternatives exist for certain requirements?
552% For those requirements that cannot be fully implemented
553% using parallel bitstream technology alone, what
554% preprocessing support can be offered by parallel bitstream
555% technology to the discharge of these requirements in other ways?
556% We address each of these questions in this section,
557% and look not only at the question of well-formedness, but also at
558We look not only at the question of well-formedness, but also at
559the identification of error positions in documents that
560are not well-formed.
561
562
563%\subsection{Error and Error-Check Bitstreams}
564
565Most of the requirements of XML well-formedness checking
566can be implemented using two particular types of computed
567bitstream: {\em error bitstreams}, introduced in the previous section, and {\em error-check bitstreams}.
568Recall that an error bitstream stream is a stream marking the location of definite errors in accordance with
569a particular requirement.  For example, the
570$E_0$, $E_1$, and $E_2$ bitstreams as computed during parsing of
571decimal character references in Figure \ref{fig:decref}
572are error bitstreams.  One bits mark definite errors and zero bits mark the
573absence of an error.   
574% absence of error according to the requirement.   
575Thus the complete absence of errors according to the
576requirements listed may be determined by forming the
577bitwise logical ``or'' of these bitstreams and confirming
578that the resulting value is zero. An error check bitstream is one
579that marks potential errors to be further checked in
580some fashion during post-bitstream processing.   
581An example is the bitstream marking the start positions
582of CDATA sections.   This is a useful information stream
583computed during bitstream processing to identify opening
584\verb:<![: sequences, but also marks positions to
585subsequently check for the complete opening
586delimiter  \verb:<![CDATA[: at each position.
587
588In typical documents, most of these error-check streams will be quite sparse
589% or even zero.   Many of the error conditions could
590or even zero.   Many error conditions could
591actually be fully implemented using bitstream techniques,
592but at the cost of a number of additional logical and shift
593operations.   In general, the conditions are
594easier and more efficient to check one-at-a-time using
595multibyte comparisons on the original source data stream.
596With very sparse streams, it is very unlikely that
597multiple instances occur within any given block, thus
598eliminating the benefit of parallel evaluation of the logic.
599
600The requirement for name checking merits comment.   XML
601names may use a wide range of Unicode character values.
602It is too expensive to check every instance of an XML name
603against the full range of possible values.   However, it is
604possible and quite inexpensive to use parallel bitstream
605techniques to verify that any ASCII characters within a name
606are indeed legal name start characters or name characters.
607Furthermore, the characters that may legally follow a
608name in XML are confined to the ASCII range.  This makes
609it useful to define a name scan character class to include all the legal ASCII characters
610for names as well as all non-ASCII characters. 
611A namecheck character class bitstream will then be defined to identify nonASCII
612characters found within namescans.   In most documents
613this bitstream will be all $0$s; even in documents with substantial
614internationalized content, the tag and attribute names used
615to define the document schema tend to be confined to the
616ASCII repertoire.   In the case that this bitstream is nonempty,
617the positions of all 1 bits in this bitstream denote characters
618that need to be individually validated.
619
620Attribute names within a single XML start tag or empty
621element tag must be unique.  This requirement could be
622implemented using one of several different approaches. Standard
623approaches include: sequential search, symbol lookup, and Bloom filters
624\cite{DaiNiZhu2010}.
625
626% In general, the use of error-check bitstreams is a straightforward,
627% convenient and reasonably efficient mechanism for
628% checking the well-formedness requirements.
629
630%\subsection{Tag Matching}
631
632Except for empty element tags, XML tags come in pairs with
633names that must be matched.   To discharge this requirement,
634we form a bitstream consisting of the disjunction of three
635bitstreams formed during parsing: the bitstream marking the
636positions of start or empty tags (which have a common
637initial structure), the bitstream marking tags that end using
638the empty tag syntax (``\verb:/>:''), and the bitstream
639marking the occurrences of end tags.   In post-bitstream
640processing, we iterate through this computed bitstream
641and match tags using an iterative stack-based approach.
642
643%\subsection{Document Structure}
644
645An XML document consists of a single root element with recursively
646defined structure together with material in the document
647prolog and epilogs.  Verifying this top-level structure and
648the structure of the prolog and epilog material is not
649well suited to parallel bitstream techniques, in particular, nor
650to any form of parallelism, in general.  In essence, the
651prolog and epilog materials occur once per document instance
652Thus the requirements to check this top-level structure
653for well-formedness are relatively minor, with an overhead
654that is quite low for sufficiently sized files.
655
656%\subsection{Summary}
657
658Overall, parallel bitstream techniques are well-suited to
659verification problems such as XML well-formedness checking. 
660Many of the character validation and syntax checking requirements
661can be conveniently and efficiently implemented using error streams.
662Other requirements are also supported by the computation of
663error-check streams for simple post-bitstream processing or
664composite stream over which iterative stack-based procedures
665can be defined for checking recursive syntax.
666
667\section{Compilation to Block-Based Processing} 
668\label{sec:compile}
669While a Python implementation of the techniques described in the previous section works on unbounded bitstreams, a corresponding
670C implementation needs to process an input stream in blocks of size equal to the
671SIMD register width of the processor it runs on.
672So, to convert Python code into C, the key question becomes how
673to transfer information from one block to the next.
674
675The answer lies in the use of {\em carry bits}.
676The parallel scanning primitive uses only addition and bitwise logic.
677The logic operations do not require information flow
678accross block boundaries, so the information flow is entirely
679accounted by the carry bits for addition.   Carry bits also
680capture the information flow associated with upshift
681operations, which move information forward one position
682in the file.   In essence, an upshift by one position for
683a bitstream is equivalent to the addition of the stream
684to itself; the bit shifted out in an upshift is in this
685case equivalent to the carry generated by the additon.
686The only other information flow requirement in the
687calculation of parallel bitstreams occurs with the
688bitstream subtractions that are used to calculate span streams.
689In this case, the information flow is based on borrows
690generated, which can be handled in the same way as carries.
691
692Properly determining, initializing and inserting carry bits
693into a block-by-block implementation of parallel bitstream
694code is a task too tedious for manual implementation.
695We have thus developed compiler technology to automatically
696insert declarations, initializations and carry save/restore
697operations into appropriate locations when translating
698Python operations on unbounded bitstreams into the
699equivalent low-level C code implemented on a block-by-block
700bases.  Our current compiler toolkit is capable of inserting
701carry logic using a variety of strategies, including both
702simulated carry bit processing with SIMD registers, as
703well as carry-flag processing using the processor general
704purpose registers and ALU.   Details are beyond the
705scope of this paper, but are described in the on-line
706source code repository at parabix.costar.sfu.ca.
707
708
709\section{Performance Results}
710
711In this section, we compare the performance of our \verb:xmlwf:
712implementation using the Parabix 2 technology described above with several
713other implementations.
714These include the original \verb:xmlwf:
715distributed as an example application of the \verb:expat: XML
716parser,  implementations based on the widely used Xerces
717open source parser using both SAX and DOM interfaces,
718and an implementation using our prior Parabix 1 technology with
719bit scan operations. 
720
721Table \ref{XMLDocChars} 
722shows the document characteristics of the XML instances selected for this performance study,
723including both document-oriented and data-oriented XML files.
724The jawiki.xml and dewiki.xml XML files are document-oriented XML instances of Wikimedia books, written in Japanese and German, respectively. The remaining files are data-oriented.  The roads.gml file is an instance of Geography Markup Language (GML),
725a modeling language for geographic information systems as well as an open interchange format for geographic transactions on the Internet.  The po.xml file is an example of purchase order data, while the soap.xml file contains a large SOAP message.
726Markup density is defined as the ratio of the total markup contained within an XML file to the total XML document size.
727This metric is reported for each document.
728
729\begin{table*}[tbh]
730\begin{center}
731\begin{tabular}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|}
732\hline
733File Name               & dewiki.xml            & jawiki.xml            & roads.gml     & po.xml        & soap.xml \\ \hline   
734File Type               & document      & document      & data  & data  & data   \\ \hline     
735File Size (kB)          & 66240                 & 7343                  & 11584         & 76450         & 2717 \\ \hline
736Markup Item Count       & 406792                & 74882                 & 280724        & 4634110       & 18004 \\ \hline               
737Attribute Count         & 18808                 & 3529                  & 160416        & 463397        & 30001\\ \hline
738Avg. Attribute Size     & 8                     & 8                     & 6             & 5             & 9\\ \hline
739Markup Density          & 0.07                  & 0.13                  & 0.57          & 0.76          & 0.87  \\ \hline
740
741\end{tabular}
742\end{center}
743 \caption{XML Document Characteristics} 
744 \label{XMLDocChars} 
745\end{table*}
746
747Table \ref{parsers-cpb} shows performance measurements for the
748various \verb:xmlwf: implementations applied to the
749test suite.   Measurements are made on a single core of an
750Intel Core 2 system running a stock 64-bit Ubuntu 10.10 operating system,
751with all applications compiled with llvm-gcc 4.4.5 optimization level 3.
752Measurements are reported in CPU cycles per input byte of
753the XML data files in each case.
754The first row shows the performance of the Xerces C parser
755using the tree-building DOM interface. 
756Note that the performance
757varies considerably depending on markup density.  Note also that
758the DOM tree construction overhead is substantial and unnecessary
759for XML well-formedness checking.  Using the event-based SAX interface
760to Xerces gives much better results as shown in the
761second row.   
762The third row shows the best performance of our byte-at-a-time
763parsers, using the original  \verb:xmlwf: based on expat.
764
765The remaining rows of Table \ref{parsers-cpb} show performance
766of parallel bitstream implementations.  The first row shows
767the performance of our Parabix 1 implementation using
768bit scan instructions.   While showing a substantial speed-up
769over the byte-at-a-time parsers in every case, note also that
770the performance advantage increases with increasing markup
771density, as expected.   The last two rows show different versions of
772the \verb:xmlwf: implemented based on the Parabix 2 technology
773as discussed in this paper.   They differ in the carry handling
774strategy, with the ``simd'' row referring to carry
775computations performed with simulated calculation of
776propagated and generated carries using SIMD operations, while the
777``adc64'' row refers to an implementation directly employing
778the processor carry flags and add-with-carry instructions on
77964-bit general registers.  In both cases, the overall
780performance is quite impressive, with the increased
781parallelism of parallel bit scans clearly paying off in
782improved performance for dense markup.
783
784
785\begin{table}[thb]
786\begin{center}
787\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
788\hline
789Parser Class & Parser & dewiki.xml  & jawiki.xml    & roads.gml  & po.xml & soap.xml  \\ \hline 
790
791Byte & Xerces (DOM)    &    37.921   &    40.559   &    72.78   &    105.497   &    125.929  \\ \cline{2-7} 
792at-a & Xerces (SAX)   &     19.829   &    24.883   &    33.435   &    46.891   &    57.119      \\ \cline{2-7}
793Time & expat      &  12.639   &    16.535   &    32.717   &    42.982   &    51.468      \\ \hline 
794Parallel & Parabix1   &    8.313   &    9.335   &     13.345   &    16.136   &      19.047 \\ \cline{2-7}
795Bit& Parabix2 (simd)   &        6.103   &    6.445   &    8.034   &    8.685   &    9.53 \\ \cline{2-7} 
796Stream & Parabix2 (adc64)       &       5.123   &    5.996   &    6.852   &    7.648   &    8.275 \\ \hline
797 \end{tabular}
798\end{center}
799 \caption{Parser Performance (Cycles Per Byte)} 
800\label{parsers-cpb} 
801\end{table}
802 
803%gcc (simd\_add)    &   6.174   &       6.405   &       7.948   &       8.565   &       9.172 \\ \hline
804%llvm (simd\_add)   &   6.104   &       6.335   &       8.332   &       8.849   &       9.811 \\ \hline
805%gcc (adc64)        &   9.23   &        9.921   &       10.394   &      10.705   &      11.751 \\ \hline
806%llvm (adc64)       &   5.757   &       6.142   &       6.763   &       7.424   &       7.952 \\ \hline
807%gcc (SAHFLAHF)    &    7.951   &       8.539   &       9.984   &       10.219   &      11.388 \\ \hline
808%llvm(SAHFLAHF)    &    5.61   &        6.02   &        6.901   &       7.597   &       8.183 \\ \hline
809 
810
811
812
813\section{Conclusion}
814
815In application to the problem of XML parsing and well-formedness
816checking, the method of parallel parsing with bitstream addition
817is effective and efficient.   Using only bitstream addition
818and bitwise logic, it is possible to handle all of the
819character validation, lexical recognition and parsing problems
820except for the recursive aspects of start and end tag matching.
821Error checking is elegantly supported through the use of error
822streams that eliminate separate if-statements to check for
823errors with each byte.   The techniques are generally very
824efficient particularly when markup density is high.   However, for some
825conditions that occur rarely and/or require complex combinations
826of upshifting and logic, it may be better to define simpler
827error-check streams that require limited postprocessing using
828byte matching techniques.
829
830The techniques have been implemented and assessed for present-day commodity processors employing current SIMD technology.
831As processor advances see improved instruction sets and increases
832in width of SIMD registers, the relative advantages of the
833techniques over traditional byte-at-a-time sequential
834parsing methods is likely to increase substantially.
835Of particular benefit to this method, instruction set modifications
836that provide for more convenient carry propagation for long
837bitstream arithmetic would be most welcome.
838
839A significant challenge to the application of these techniques
840is the difficulty of programming.   The method of prototyping
841on unbounded bitstreams has proven to be of significant value
842in our work.   Using the prototyping language as input to
843a bitstream compiler has also proven effective in generating
844high-performance code.   Nevertheless, direct programming
845with bitstreams is still a specialized skill; our future
846research includes developing yet higher level tools to
847generate efficient bitstream implementations from grammars,
848regular expressions and other text processing formalisms.
849
850
851\bibliographystyle{plain}
852\bibliography{xmlperf}
853
854
855\end{document}
856
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.