On the Merits of Distributed Work-Stealing on Selective Locality-Aware Tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving the performance of work-stealing load-balancing algorithms in distributed shared-memory systems is challenging. These algorithms need to overcome high costs of contention among workers, communication and remote data-references between nodes, and their impact on the locality preferences of tasks. Prior research focus on stealing from a victim that best exploits data locality, and on using special deques that minimize the contention between local and remote workers. This work explores the selection of tasks that are favourable for migration across nodes in a distributed memory cluster, a lesser-explored dimension to distributed work-stealing. The selection of tasks is guided by the application-level task locality rather than hardware memory topology as is the norm in the literature. The prototype for the performance evaluation of these ideas is implemented in X10, a realization of the asynchronous partitioned global address space programming model. This evaluation reveals the applicability of this new approach on several real-world applications chosen from the Cowichan and the Lone star suites. On a cluster of 128 processors, the new work-stealing strategy demonstrates a speedup between 12% and 31% over X10's existing scheduler. Moreover, the new strategy does not degrade the performance of any of the applications studied.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it