Deconstructing the overhead in parallel applications
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
Performance problems in parallel programs manifest as lack of scalability. These scalability issues are often very difficult to debug. They can stem from synchronization overhead, poor thread scheduling decisions, or contention for hardware resources, such as shared caches. Traditional profiling tools attribute program cycles to different functions, but do not generate immediate insight into issues limiting scalability. Profiling information is very program-specific and is usually processed manually by a human expert in a time-consuming and cumbersome process. Our experience in tuning performance of parallel applications led us to discover that performance tuning can be considerably simplified, and even to some degree automated, if profiling measurements are organized according to several intuitive performance factors common to most parallel programs. In this work we present these factors and propose a hierarchical framework composing them. We present three case studies where analyzing profiling data according to the proposed principle led us to improve performance of three parallel programs by a factor of 6-20×. Our work lays foundation for new ways of organizing and visualizing profiling data in performance tuning tools.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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