Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

A place to collect ideas and observations about a re-write of the internals of UIMA to modernize it in several dimension.

These include

  • Allowing more parallelism - e.g. running a pipeline with multiple independent Annotators working together in the same CAS
  • Shifting the space / speed tradeoffs - the current design has ways to minimize the memory footprint, but is potentially slower than designs not so focussed on this
    • Because of the relative speed of CPUs and Memory, much improved performance can be obtained by improving locality-of-reference (LOR); often done by duplicating things (taking more memory)
    • Here's a description of the l1/2/3 cache mechanism of IBM's Power 7: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/resources/systems_power_software_i_perfmgmt_underthehood.pdf
      • A cache line is 128 bytes.  This means to refer to 1 byte, 128 bytes are uploaded.  L1 has 256 of these cache-lines for data, and 256 for instructions, per core.
      • A core can be running 4 threads, so the L1 is "shared" among these. See notion of "Cache pressure" in above linked article.
      • L2 has 2048 of these cache-lines
      • Timings:
        • L1 access = 1 cycle, but note that the core can execute up to 5 instructions / cycle
        • L2 usually less than 10 cycles
        • this core's L3 ~ 25 cycles
        • other core's L3 ~ 150 cycles
        • Main Memory ~400 cycles
  • Removing parts of UIMA not used (e.g., the CAS Data Object protocols and related things like the NetworkCasProcessorImpl
  • Switching from custom implementations of various functions to more standard Java libraries implementation
    • to reduce the code size
    • to make it more maintainable
    • to take advantage of core Java / core Library improvements going forward
  • Handling backward compatibility - how much, how faithful, etc.

A prototype in this direction, called Cas-obj, has been offered in UIMA-4329

Ideas for the next major version of UIMA

Here's a wiki page to collect more ideas for what might be some things to consider for UIMA version 3.

Edge Cases affecting internal design

Merged Type Systems, running different type systems in 1 JVM, sharing JCas cover objects

A key aspect of UIMA is the type system merging (among all annotators in a pipeline) that occurs at the beginning of a "run". After the merge is complete, the type system is "locked down", and various optimizations are possible based on this.

The design should support the use case: 1 JVM running multiple different pipelines together.  So, in particular, there can be multiple TypeSystems in use at once.

The design should support the use case: 1 JVM loading 1 definition of JCas cover objects, but running different underlying typesystems sharing the JCas cover objects.  This implies that part of the instantiation of the JCas Cover object is variable, based on the type system, and the particular location (or number of) features in a type a JCas is "covering" might be different in the underlying type systems.  

These use cases give rise to a design with some "indirection" to support the multiplicity of values corresponding to multiple type systems in the same JVM (with possibly the same JCas cover objects).

Pear classpath isolation

This allows Pears to run with different JCas cover objects, for the same underlying shared UIMA Type.

Runtime checks

Runtime checks can slow down normal operations, but this can be minimized via a design which only references L1/cache data.

Frequencies

  • 1 = high freq get of Feature from FS (e.g. begin, end)
  • 2 = medium freq get of Feature from FS (key feature)
  • 3 = medium freq get of Feature from FS (not key feature)
  • 4 = set of Feature from FS 

areasub-areafrequencydetails
FS creation

AnnotationBase subtype not allowed in base View

  
FS slot setting

check for index corruption

  • see if FS field is one which is in 1 or more indexes, and if so,
  • see if this FS is in any index in any view
    • (currently an expensive operation, could be made a lot cheaper with 1 boolean per FS per view - the value could be indexed in one view and not in another)
  
    
  • No labels