MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056816686 · doi:10.1145/2641483.2641530

On the Dynamic Scheduling of Task Farm Patterns on a Heterogeneous CPU-GPGPU Environment

2008· article· en· W2056816686 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Zhang, Dhrubajyoti Goswami, Bahareh Goodarzi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Parallel computingProgrammerDynamic priority schedulingFair-share schedulingFixed-priority pre-emptive schedulingDistributed computingGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsMulti-core processorGang schedulingTwo-level schedulingSymmetric multiprocessor systemRate-monotonic schedulingComputer architectureEmbedded systemGraphicsOperating systemSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneous clusters and multi-core environments are gradually surpassing the homogeneous systems due to their high performance and flexibility. Task scheduling in these systems is an extensively studied subject. However, in a heterogeneous architecture consisting of multi-core CPUs and many-core GPGPUs (General Purpose Graphics Processor Units), task mapping becomes much more complex due to differences in architectures and programming models among the processors. Consequently, designing a scheduler which facilities a balanced distribution of loads by taking full advantage of the processing power of a CPU-GPGPU system is nontrivial. In this paper we discuss a multi-round scheduling algorithm and a scheduling framework for farm-pattern based applications on such a system. This is an important step towards designing a full-scale pattern-based scheduler to automatically and efficiently map the parallel tasks to the heterogeneous processors. As a proof of concept, we have designed a scheduling framework for the task-farm pattern based applications. The framework provides the necessary "separation of concerns" and hides the underlying complex scheduling details from the programmer. The experimental results demonstrate that our dynamic scheduling algorithm achieves better to similar performances as compared to some of the well-known scheduling algorithms for CPU-GPGPU systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207