Instruction Set Migration at Warehouse Scale

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.14928
• Title: Instruction Set Migration at Warehouse Scale
• Authors: Eric Christopher, Kevin Crossan, Wolff Dobson, Chris Kennelly, Drew Lewis, Kun Lin, Martin Maas, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Emma Rapati, Brian Yang (Google, USA)
• Classification: cs.SE (Software Engineering), cs.LG (Machine Learning)
• Publication Date: October 16, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14928

Abstract

This paper challenges conventional perspectives on instruction set architecture (ISA) migration by analyzing Google's large-scale migration from x86 to Arm, encompassing nearly 40,000 code commits. The research demonstrates that the primary challenges in modern ISA migration are no longer code translation, but rather a multifaceted set of engineering tasks. The paper proposes a taxonomy of ISA migration tasks, demonstrates how Google automated many migration steps, and establishes the critical role of AI in automating these tasks.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

1. Core Challenge: Large-scale codebase instruction set architecture migration represents a significant engineering undertaking with limited academic attention
2. Practical Necessity: Major cloud service providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft) are adopting Arm architecture to complement x86, requiring systematic migration methodologies
3. Limitations of Traditional Approaches: Prior research focused primarily on static and dynamic binary translation, treating these as the primary ISA migration challenges

Research Motivation

1. Technological Evolution: Modern ISAs are well-supported in upstream compilers, runtime libraries, and the Linux kernel, making source-level recompilation feasible
2. Absence of Practical Analysis: Lack of systematic analysis of tasks actually involved in modern ISA migration
3. Automation Opportunities: Modern software engineering tools and AI technologies enable new possibilities for migration automation

Core Contributions

1. First Systematic Analysis: Provides the first detailed decomposition and taxonomy of large-scale ISA migration tasks, based on 38,156 real commits
2. Paradigm Shift: Demonstrates that ISA migration complexity lies not in code translation but primarily in build and configuration file rewrites
3. Automation Framework: Shows that many migration tasks are highly automatable and develops CogniPort, an AI-driven automation tool
4. Practical Guidance: Identifies remaining challenging tasks and provides direction for future research

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The core task studied is: Migrating a multi-billion line codebase from x86 architecture to a multi-architecture environment supporting both x86 and Arm

Input: Single-architecture (x86) large-scale codebase Output: Multi-architecture (x86+Arm) capable codebase Constraints: Maintain parity in performance, security, and stability

Analysis Architecture

1. Data Collection and Annotation

• Data Source: 38,156 Arm migration-related commits from Google's monolithic repository
• Automated Classification: Large-scale commit analysis using Gemini 2.5 Flash LLM
• Classification Pipeline:
  1. Feed commit messages and code diffs into LLM's 1M token context window
  2. Process 100 commits per batch, with model selecting from 20 categories
  3. Consolidate 400×20 categories into 50, then manually refine to 16 categories

2. Migration Lifecycle Model

Defines a five-stage migration process:

1. Testing Phase: Fix tests and builds failing on new ISA
2. Multi-Architecture CI Setup: Modify Blueprint files to ensure no regressions
3. Release Configuration: Modify Blueprint files to enable multi-architecture support by default
4. New Binary Rollout: Run on new ISA machines and evaluate performance stability
5. Full Production: Allow production workloads to schedule on new ISA machines

Technical Innovations

1. LLM-Based Large-Scale Code Analysis

• Innovatively employs large language models to analyze tens of thousands of code commits
• Establishes systematic taxonomy of ISA migration tasks (17 categories)

2. Multi-Level Automation Framework

• Large-Scale Changes (LSCs): Implement large-scale automated code modifications via Rosie tool
• CHAMP System: Continuous health monitoring platform that automatically evaluates behavioral differences in Arm builds
• CogniPort AI Agent: Three-layer nested agent loop for automated build and test error fixing

3. AI-Driven Repair Agent

CogniPort comprises three nested agent loops:

• Orchestrator Agent: Invokes build/test repair agents based on workspace state
• Build Repair Agent: Attempts builds and modifies files until success
• Test Repair Agent: Runs tests and modifies code until passing

Experimental Setup

Dataset Characteristics

• Scale: 38,156 commits, approximately 700K lines of code changes
• Time Span: Multi-year migration process
• Coverage: Representative subset of Google's multi-billion line internal codebase

Evaluation Metrics

1. Automation Degree: Proportion of auto-generated commits and code lines per category
2. AI Repair Success Rate: CogniPort's repair success rate on 245 test commits
3. Migration Effectiveness: Application qualification rate improved from 4.8% to 59.6%, rollback rate controlled below 1.8%

Experimental Methodology

1. Historical Commit Analysis: Restore historical commits and evaluate AI agent repair capabilities
2. Classification Accuracy Verification: Manual inspection of model outputs to ensure classification accuracy
3. Automation Effectiveness Evaluation: Statistical analysis of LSC and CHAMP system automation coverage

Experimental Results

Key Findings

1. Task Distribution Analysis (Figure 1)

• Build Configuration Dominance: 84% of commits involve build, packaging, and CI/CD configuration (category 8)
• Minimal Code Modification: Code adaptation and correction (categories 1-5) account for only 1% of commits and less than 4% of code lines
• Test Adaptation Significance: Test-related modifications (categories 6-7) constitute a substantial portion

2. Temporal Evolution Patterns (Figure 3)

• Early Stage: Primarily tool development and test adaptation
• Middle Stage: Increased proportion of code adaptation commits
• Late Stage: Almost entirely configuration files and support processes, with rapid commit volume growth

3. Automation Effectiveness

• Overall Automation Rate: 83.82% of commits and 14.15% of code lines automated
• LSC-Generated Commits: 31,984 commits automatically generated via Rosie
• Application Qualification Rate Improvement: From 4.8% to 59.6%
• Low Rollback Rate: Final stage rollback rate reduced to below 0.8%

AI Agent Performance (Figure 4)

CogniPort performance on 245 test commits:

• Overall Success Rate: 30%
• Best-Performing Categories: Test repair, platform-specific conditional code, data representation fixes
• Challenging Categories: Memory models, test execution environments, performance optimization

Category Automation Potential (Figure 5)

AI-assessed automation difficulty (1=simple, 5=difficult):

• Highly Automatable: Build configuration files, test execution environments
• Moderate Difficulty: Code and test adaptation (categories 1-7)
• Requiring Manual Effort: Complex performance optimization, specialized service configuration

Related Work

Traditional Approaches

1. Binary Translation: Static and dynamic binary translation techniques, such as Rosetta systems
2. Automated Code Editing: Automation methods for performance optimization, security issue fixing, and error correction

Innovations in This Work

1. Shift from Binary Translation to Source Recompilation: Leverages mature support from modern open-source ecosystems
2. Systematic Task Analysis: First comprehensive taxonomy of ISA migration tasks
3. AI-Driven Automation: Applies large language models to large-scale code migration

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Paradigm Shift: ISA migration complexity lies not in code translation but in multifaceted engineering tasks
2. High Automation Potential: Majority of migration tasks can be automated with modern tools
3. One-Time Work Reusability: Many tasks can be reused after initial multi-architecture migration
4. Significant AI Potential: Modern AI can address many remaining manual tasks

Limitations

1. Evaluation Method Constraints: AI agent evaluation may suffer from information leakage or incomplete testing
2. Google-Specific Environment: Conclusions may not fully generalize to other organizations' software environments
3. Arm-Specific Focus: Research concentrates on x86-to-Arm migration; other ISA migrations may present different challenges

Future Directions

Remaining Challenging Tasks

1. ISA-Specific Vector Code: Requires complex performance optimization search spaces
2. Deep Performance Optimization: Demands algorithm-level restructuring and intrinsic function usage
3. Complex Edge Cases: Requires expertise beyond code itself
4. Performance Tuning: Necessitates hyperparameter regeneration and feedback-directed optimization profiles

Research Opportunities

1. Enhanced AI Agent Capabilities: Support more powerful agents with documentation search and performance measurement
2. Vectorization Automation: Automatically generate high-performance ISA-specific vector code
3. Multi-Architecture Toolchains: Further improve automated multi-architecture support tools

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Exceptional Practical Value: Based on genuine industrial-scale migration experience with strong guidance implications
2. Methodological Innovation: First systematic analysis and classification of ISA migration tasks, establishing foundational framework for the field
3. Massive Data Scale: Analysis of 38,156 commits represents exceptionally rare scale in software engineering research
4. Forward-Looking Technology: Demonstrates significant potential of AI in large-scale software engineering tasks
5. Counter-Intuitive Results: Challenges conventional domain wisdom with important academic value

Limitations

1. Environment Specificity: Research grounded in Google's particular software environment with potentially limited generalizability
2. Evaluation Method Constraints: AI agent evaluation may contain biases requiring more rigorous benchmarking
3. Missing Cost Analysis: Lacks quantitative analysis of migration costs (labor, time, resources)
4. Insufficient Long-Term Maintenance Consideration: Limited analysis of long-term maintenance costs for multi-architecture codebases

Impact

1. Academic Impact: Provides new research directions for software engineering and systems architecture
2. Industrial Value: Offers practical methodology and tool references for other organizations undertaking ISA migration
3. Technology Advancement: Promotes AI application development in software engineering
4. Standard Establishment: Potentially becomes important reference standard for ISA migration field

Applicable Scenarios

1. Large Technology Companies: Organizations with massive codebases requiring architecture migration
2. Cloud Service Providers: Need to support multiple hardware architectures for cost and performance optimization
3. Open-Source Project Maintainers: Large-scale open-source projects requiring expanded architecture support
4. Research Institutions: Academic teams researching software engineering automation and AI applications

References

The paper cites 27 important references covering:

• Binary translation techniques (Altman et al., 2000; Gouicem et al., 2022)
• Large-scale software engineering (Potvin & Levenberg, 2016; Winters et al., 2020)
• Automated code repair (Bader et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2025)
• Systems architecture (Verma et al., 2015; Corbett et al., 2012)

Summary: This paper possesses significant practical value and academic merit, providing the first systematic analysis of actual challenges and solutions in modern large-scale ISA migration. Beyond challenging conventional wisdom, it demonstrates the tremendous potential of AI technology in software engineering, providing important guidance for future development in this field.