Revisiting Shared Cache Contention Problems: A Practical Hardware-Software Cooperative Approach
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
Although shared caches allow the dynamic allocation of limited cache capacity among cores, traditional LRU replacement policies often cannot prevent negative interference among cores. To address the contention problem in shared caches, cache partitioning and application scheduling techniques have been extensively studied. Partitioning explicitly determines cache capacity for each core to maximize the overall throughput. On the other hand, application scheduling by operating systems groups the least interfering applications for each shared cache, when multiple shared caches exist in systems. Although application scheduling can mitigate the contention problem without any extra hardware support, its effect can be limited for some severe contentions. This paper proposes a low cost solution, based on application scheduling with a simple cache insertion control. Instead of using a full hardware-based cache partitioning mechanism, the proposed technique mostly relies on application scheduling. It selectively uses LRU insertion to the shared caches, which can be added with negligible hardware changes from the current commercial processor designs. For the completeness of cache interference evaluation, this paper examines all possible mixes from a set of applications, instead of using a just few selected mixes. The evaluation shows that the proposed technique can mitigate the cache contention problem effectively, close to the ideal scheduling and partitioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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