Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peter A. Jonsson

dblp:63/4444 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 2 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program analysis · 44% Programming languages and type systems · 37% Compilers and program optimization · 15%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 50% Parallel and multicore computing · 50%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis › dynamic language analysis
javascript analysis
0.112012
Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012
Programming languages and type systems
language design
0.112012
Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112012
Remedying the eval that men do · ISSTA 2012
Programming languages and type systems › evaluation strategies
call-by-value
0.112009
Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009
Compilers and program optimization
program transformation
0.112009
Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009
Visualization and visual analytics › software visualization
performance visualization
0.112016
Grain graphs: OpenMP performance analysis made easy · PPoPP 2016
Program verification
termination analysis
0.012009
Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language · POPL 2009

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

grain graph visualization · 0.5static analysis · 0.1strictness analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Grain graphs: OpenMP performance analysis made easy
abstract
Average programmers struggle to solve performance problems in OpenMP programs with tasks and parallel for-loops. Existing performance analysis tools visualize OpenMP task performance from the runtime system's perspective where task execution is interleaved with other tasks in an unpredictable order. Problems with OpenMP parallel for-loops are similarly difficult to resolve since tools only visualize aggregate thread-level statistics such as load imbalance without zooming into a per-chunk granularity. The runtime system/threads oriented visualization provides poor support for understanding problems with task and chunk execution time, parallelism, and memory hierarchy utilization, forcing average programmers to rely on experts or use tedious trial-and-error tuning methods for performance. We present grain graphs, a new OpenMP performance analysis method that visualizes grains -- computation performed by a task or a parallel for-loop chunk instance -- and highlights problems such as low parallelism, work inflation and poor parallelization benefit at the grain level. We demonstrate that grain graphs can quickly reveal performance problems that are difficult to detect and characterize in fine detail using existing visualizations in standard OpenMP programs, simplifying OpenMP performance analysis. This enables average programmers to make portable optimizations for poor performing OpenMP programs, reducing pressure on experts and removing the need for tedious trial-and-error tuning.
Ananya Muddukrishna, Peter A. Jonsson, Artur Podobas, Mats Brorsson
PPoPP2
2012 Remedying the eval that men do
abstract
A range of static analysis tools and techniques have been developed in recent years with the aim of helping JavaScript web application programmers produce code that is more robust, safe, and efficient. However, as shown in a previous large-scale study, many web applications use the JavaScript eval function to dynamically construct code from text strings in ways that obstruct existing static analyses. As a consequence, the analyses either fail to reason about the web applications or produce unsound or useless results.
Simon Holm Jensen, Peter A. Jonsson, Anders Møller
ISSTA2
2011 Taming code explosion in supercompilation
abstract
Supercompilation algorithms can perform great optimizations but sometimes suffer from the problem of code explosion. This results in huge binaries which might hurt the performance on a modern processor. We present a supercompilation algorithm that is fast enough to speculatively supercompile expressions and discard the result if it turned out bad. This allows us to supercompile large parts of the imaginary and spectral parts of nofib in a matter of seconds while keeping the binary size increase below 5%.
Peter A. Jonsson, Johan Nordlander
PEPM1
2009 Positive supercompilation for a higher order call-by-value language
abstract
Previous deforestation and supercompilation algorithms may introduce accidental termination when applied to call-by-value programs. This hides looping bugs from the programmer, and changes the behavior of a program depending on whether it is optimized or not. We present a supercompilation algorithm for a higher-order call-by-value language and we prove that the algorithm both terminates and preserves termination properties. This algorithm utilizes strictness information for deciding whether to substitute or not and compares favorably with previous call-by-name transformations.
Peter A. Jonsson, Johan Nordlander
POPL1