MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520189063 · doi:10.1109/hipc.2014.7116889

Optimizing shared data accesses in distributed-memory X10 systems

2014· article· en· W1520189063 on OpenAlexaff
Jeeva Paudel, Olivier Tardieu, Jose Nelson Amarai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCache coherenceDistributed shared memoryShared memoryStencilProtocol (science)Variable (mathematics)Operating systemSpeedupParallel computingDistributed computingMemory managementUniform memory accessOverlayCacheCPU cache

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior studies have established the performance impact of coherence protocols optimized for specific patterns of shared-data accesses in Non-Uniform-Memory-Architecture (NUMA) systems. First, this work incorporates a directory-based protocol into the runtime system of X10 — a Partitioned-Global-Address-Space (PGAS) programming language — to manage read-mostly, producer-consumer, stencil, and migratory variables. This protocol complements the existing X10Protocol, which keeps a unique copy of a shared variable and relies on message transfers for all remote accesses. The X10Protocol is effective to manage accumulator, write-mostly and general read-write variables. Then, it introduces a new shared-variable access-pattern profiler that is used by a new coherence-policy manager to decide which protocol should be used for each shared variable. The profiler can be run in both offline and online modes. An evaluation on a 128-core distributed-memory machine reveals that coordination between these protocols does not degrade performance on any of the applications studied, and achieves speedup in the range of 15% to 40% over X10Protocol. The performance is also comparable to carefully hand-written versions of the applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207