Memory-Aware Scheduling of Multicore Task Sets for Real-Time Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time scheduling of memory-intensive applications is a particularly difficult challenge. On a multi-core system, not only is the CPU scheduling an issue, but equally important is the management of mutual interference among tasks caused by simultaneous access to the shared main memory. To confront this problem, we explore real-time schedulers for task sets which adhere to the Predictable Execution Model (PREM). In each PREM-compliant task, execution is divided into phases which retrieve data from main memory, and phases which perform local computation using previously-cached data. In this work, we perform a simulation-based analysis with the goal of determining which schedulers are generally better at scheduling PREM-compliant task sets. We investigate several memory intensive real-time benchmarks from the EEMBC benchmark suite, in order to drive our task set generation parameters. We elaborate on a PREM-complaint task set simulator which we designed specifically to be able to simulate PREM-compliant tasks. The overall best scheduling policy we found, which we call M-LAX, schedules access to memory in a no preemptive fashion according to a least-laxity-first policy. M-LAX outperforms an EDF-based approach, a previously-analyzed TDMA arbitration scheme, and the unscheduled case where tasks interfere when accessing 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".