MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051427249 · doi:10.1002/cpe.729

Implementation of the EARTH programming model on SMP clusters: a multi‐threaded language and runtime system

2003· article· en· W2051427249 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Tremblay, C. Morrone, José Nelson Amaral, Guang R. Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsComputer sciencePOSIX ThreadsSoftware portabilityRuntime systemParallel computingProgramming paradigmScheduling (production processes)Synchronization (alternating current)Distributed computingOperating systemProgramming languageThread (computing)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the design and implementation of an Efficient Architecture for Running THreads (EARTH) runtime system for a multi‐processor/multi‐node cluster. The (EARTH) model was designed to support the efficient execution of parallel (multi‐threaded) programs with irregular fine‐grain parallelism using off‐the‐shelf computers. Implementing an EARTH runtime system requires an explicitly threaded runtime system. For portability, we built this runtime system on top of Pthreads under Linux and used sockets for inter‐node communication. Moreover, in order to make the best use of the resources available on a cluster of symmetric multi‐processors (SMP), this implementation enables the overlapping of communication and computation. We used Threaded‐C, a language designed to implement the programming model supported by the EARTH architecture. This language allows the expression of various levels of parallelism and provides the primitives needed to manage the required communication and synchronization. The Threaded‐C programming language supports irregular fine‐grain parallelism through a two‐level hierarchy of threads and fibers. It also provides various synchronization and communication constructs that reflect the nature of EARTH's fibers—non‐preemptive execution with data‐driven scheduling—as well as the extensive use of split‐phase transactions on EARTH to execute long‐latency operations. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207