MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522363177 · doi:10.1109/rtas.2015.7108440

Task placement and selection of data consistency mechanisms for real-time multicore applications

2015· article· en· W1522363177 on OpenAlexaff
Zaid Al-bayati, Youcheng Sun, Haibo Zeng, Marco Di Natale, Qi Zhu, Brett H. Meyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingLeverage (statistics)Task (project management)Multi-core processorScheduling (production processes)Consistency (knowledge bases)Embedded systemParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicores are today used in automotive, controls and avionics systems supporting real-time functionality. When real-time tasks allocated on different cores cooperate through the use of shared communication resources, they need to be protected by mechanisms that guarantee access in a mutual exclusive way with bounded worst-case blocking time. Lock-based mechanisms such as MPCP and MSRP have been developed to fulfill this demand, and research papers are today tackling the problem of finding the optimal task placement in multicores while trying to meet the deadlines against blocking times. In this paper, we propose a resource-aware task allocation algorithm for systems that use MSRP to protect shared resources. Furthermore, we leverage the additional opportunity provided by wait-free methods as an alternative data consistency mechanism for the case that the shared resource is communication or state memory. An algorithm that performs both task allocation and data consistency mechanism (MSRP or wait-free) selection is proposed. The selective use of wait-free methods can significantly extend the range of schedulable systems at the cost of memory.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207