MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035326338 · doi:10.1145/1353522.1353527

The potential for variable-granularity access tracking for optimistic parallelism

2008· article· en· W2035326338 on OpenAlexaff
Mihai Burcea, J. Gregory Steffan, Cristiana Amza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGranularityExploitTransactional memoryCacheParallel computingCPU cacheMultithreadingThread (computing)Speculative multithreadingVariable (mathematics)Operating systemDatabase transactionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Support for optimistic parallelism such as thread-level speculation (TLS) and transactional memory (TM) has been proposed to ease the task of parallelizing software to exploit the new abundance of multicores. A key requirement for such support is the mechanism for tracking memory accesses so that conflicts between speculative threads or transactions can be detected; existing schemes mainly track accesses at a single fixed granularity---i.e., at the word level, cache-line level, or page level. In this paper we demonstrate, for a hardware implementation of TLS and corresponding speculatively-parallelized SpecINT benchmarks, that the coarsest access tracking granularity that does not incur false violations varies significantly across applications, within applications, and across ranges of memory---from word-size to page size. These results motivate a variable-granularity approach to access tracking, and we show that such an approach can reduce the number of memory ranges that must be tracked and compared to detect conflicts can be reduced by an order of magnitude compared to word-level tracking, without increasing false violations. We are currently developing variable-granularity implementations of both a hardware-based TLS system and an STM system.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207