MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030183445 · doi:10.1109/pact.2007.23

Component-Based Lock Allocation

2007· article· en· W2030183445 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThread (computing)Critical sectionAllocatorCorrectnessLock (firearm)Distributed computingParallel computingComponent (thermodynamics)JavaOperating systemProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The allocation of lock objects to critical sections in concurrent programs affects both performance and correctness. Recent work explores automatic lock allocation, aiming primarily to minimize conflicts and maximize parallelism by allocating locks to individual critical section interferences. We investigate component-based lock allocation, which allocates locks to entire groups of interfering critical sections. Our allocator depends on a thread-based side effect analysis, and benefits from precise points-to and may happen in parallel information. Thread-local object information has a small impact, and dynamic locks do not improve significantly on static locks. We experiment with a range of small and large Java benchmarks on 2-way, 4-way, and 8-way machines, and find that a single static lock is sufficient for mtrt, that performance degrades by 10 % for hsqldb, that jbb2000 becomes mostly serialized, and that for lusearch, xalan, and jbb2005, component-based lock allocation recovers the performance of the original program. 1.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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