# Phase 9-1 Implementation Complete

**Date**: 2025-11-30 06:40 JST
**Status**: Infrastructure Complete, Benchmarking In Progress
**Completion**: 5/6 steps done

## Summary

Phase 9-1 successfully implemented a hash table-based SuperSlab lookup system to replace the linear probing registry. The infrastructure is complete and integrated, but initial benchmarks show unexpected results that require investigation.

## Completed Work ✅

### 1. SuperSlabMap Box (Phase 9-1-1) ✅
**Files Created:**
- `core/box/ss_addr_map_box.h` (149 lines)
- `core/box/ss_addr_map_box.c` (262 lines)

**Implementation:**
- Hash table with 8192 buckets
- Chaining collision resolution
- O(1) amortized lookup
- Handles multiple SuperSlab alignments (512KB, 1MB, 2MB)
- Uses `__libc_malloc/__libc_free` to avoid recursion

### 2. TLS Hints (Phase 9-1-4) ✅
**Files Created:**
- `core/box/ss_tls_hint_box.h` (238 lines)
- `core/box/ss_tls_hint_box.c` (22 lines)

**Implementation:**
- `__thread SuperSlab* g_tls_ss_hint[TINY_NUM_CLASSES]`
- Fast path: TLS cache check (5-10 cycles expected)
- Slow path: Hash table fallback + cache update
- Debug statistics tracking

### 3. Debug Macros (Phase 9-1-3) ✅
**Implemented:**
- `SS_MAP_LOOKUP()` - Trace lookups
- `SS_MAP_INSERT()` - Trace registrations
- `SS_MAP_REMOVE()` - Trace unregistrations
- `ss_map_print_stats()` - Collision/load stats
- Environment-gated: `HAKMEM_SS_MAP_TRACE=1`

### 4. Integration (Phase 9-1-5) ✅
**Modified Files:**
- `core/hakmem_tiny_lazy_init.inc.h` - Initialize `ss_map_init()`
- `core/hakmem_super_registry.c` - Hook `ss_map_insert/remove()`
- `core/hakmem_super_registry.h` - Replace `hak_super_lookup()` implementation
- `Makefile` - Add new modules to build

**Changes:**
1. `ss_map_init()` called at SuperSlab subsystem initialization
2. `ss_map_insert()` called when registering SuperSlabs
3. `ss_map_remove()` called when unregistering SuperSlabs
4. `hak_super_lookup()` now uses `ss_map_lookup()` instead of linear probing

## Benchmark Results 🔍

### WS256 (Hot Cache)
```
Phase 8 Baseline:  79.2 M ops/s
Phase 9-1 Result:  79.2 M ops/s  (no change)
```
**Status**: ✅ No regression in hot cache performance

### WS8192 (Realistic)
```
Phase 8 Baseline:  16.5 M ops/s
Phase 9-1 Result:  16.2 M ops/s  (no improvement)
```
**Status**: ⚠️ No improvement observed

## Investigation Needed 🔍

### Observation
The hash table optimization did NOT improve WS8192 performance as expected. Possible reasons:

1. **SuperSlab Not Used in Benchmark**
   - Default bench settings may disable SuperSlab path
   - Test with: `HAKMEM_TINY_USE_SUPERSLAB=1`
   - When enabled, performance drops to 15M ops/s

2. **Different Bottleneck**
   - Phase 8 analysis identified SuperSlab lookup as 50-80 cycle bottleneck
   - Actual bottleneck may be elsewhere (fragmentation, TLS drain, etc.)
   - Need profiling to confirm actual hot path

3. **Hash Table Not Exercised**
   - Benchmark may be hitting TLS fast path entirely
   - SuperSlab lookups may not happen in hot path
   - Need to verify with profiling/tracing

### Next Steps for Investigation

1. **Profile Actual Bottleneck**
   ```bash
   perf record -g ./bench_random_mixed_hakmem 10000000 8192
   perf report
   ```

2. **Enable SuperSlab and Measure**
   ```bash
   HAKMEM_TINY_USE_SUPERSLAB=1 ./bench_random_mixed_hakmem 10000000 8192
   ```

3. **Check Lookup Statistics**
   - Build debug version without RELEASE flag
   - Enable `HAKMEM_SS_MAP_TRACE=1`
   - Count actual lookup calls

4. **Verify TLS vs SuperSlab Split**
   - Check what percentage of allocations hit TLS vs SuperSlab
   - Benchmark may be 100% TLS (fast path) with no SuperSlab lookups

## Code Quality ✅

All new code follows Box pattern:
- ✅ Single Responsibility
- ✅ Clear Contracts
- ✅ Observable (debug macros)
- ✅ Composable (coexists with legacy)
- ✅ No compilation warnings
- ✅ No runtime crashes

## Files Modified/Created

### New Files (4)
1. `core/box/ss_addr_map_box.h`
2. `core/box/ss_addr_map_box.c`
3. `core/box/ss_tls_hint_box.h`
4. `core/box/ss_tls_hint_box.c`

### Modified Files (4)
1. `core/hakmem_tiny_lazy_init.inc.h` - Added init call
2. `core/hakmem_super_registry.c` - Added insert/remove hooks
3. `core/hakmem_super_registry.h` - Replaced lookup implementation
4. `Makefile` - Added new modules

### Documentation (2)
1. `PHASE9_1_PROGRESS.md` - Detailed progress tracking
2. `PHASE9_1_COMPLETE.md` - This file

## Lessons Learned

1. **Premature Optimization**
   - Phase 8 analysis identified bottleneck without profiling
   - Assumed SuperSlab lookup was the problem
   - Should have profiled first before implementing solution

2. **Benchmark Configuration**
   - Default benchmark may not exercise the optimized path
   - Need to verify assumptions about what code paths are executed
   - Environment variables can dramatically change behavior

3. **Infrastructure Still Valuable**
   - Even if not the current bottleneck, O(1) lookup is correct design
   - Future workloads may benefit (more SuperSlabs, different patterns)
   - Clean Box-based architecture enables future optimization

## Recommendations

### Option 1: Profile and Re-Target
1. Run perf profiling on WS8192 benchmark
2. Identify actual bottleneck (may not be SuperSlab lookup)
3. Implement targeted fix for real bottleneck
4. Re-benchmark

**Timeline**: 1-2 days
**Risk**: Low
**Expected**: 20-30M ops/s at WS8192

### Option 2: Enable SuperSlab and Optimize
1. Configure benchmark to force SuperSlab usage
2. Measure hash table effectiveness with SuperSlab enabled
3. Optimize SuperSlab fragmentation/capacity issues
4. Re-benchmark

**Timeline**: 2-3 days
**Risk**: Medium
**Expected**: 18-22M ops/s at WS8192

### Option 3: Accept Baseline and Move Forward
1. Keep hash table infrastructure (no harm, better design)
2. Focus on other optimization opportunities
3. Return to this if profiling shows it's needed later

**Timeline**: 0 days (done)
**Risk**: Low
**Expected**: 16-17M ops/s at WS8192 (status quo)

## Conclusion

Phase 9-1 successfully delivered clean, well-architected infrastructure for O(1) SuperSlab lookups. The code compiles, runs without crashes, and follows all Box pattern principles.

However, **benchmark results show no improvement**, suggesting either:
1. The identified bottleneck was incorrect
2. The benchmark doesn't exercise the optimized path
3. A different bottleneck dominates performance

**Recommended Next Step**: Profile with `perf` to identify actual bottleneck before further optimization work.

---

**Prepared by**: Claude (Sonnet 4.5)
**Timestamp**: 2025-11-30 06:40 JST
**Status**: Infrastructure complete, performance investigation needed