MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079248286 · doi:10.1109/micro.2014.62

Managing GPU Concurrency in Heterogeneous Architectures

2014· article· en· W2079248286 on OpenAlexaff
Onur Kayıran, Nachiappan Chidambaram Nachiappan, Adwait Jog, Rachata Ausavarungnirun, Mahmut Kandemir, Gabriel H. Loh, Onur Mutlu, Chita R. Das

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingCentral processing unitConcurrencyMulti-core processorCUDAThread (computing)Performance improvementShared memorySymmetric multiprocessor systemCPU shieldingComputer architectureEmbedded systemDistributed computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneous architectures consisting of general-purpose CPUs and throughput-optimized GPUs are projected to be the dominant computing platforms for many classes of applications. The design of such systems is more complex than that of homogeneous architectures because maximizing resource utilization while minimizing shared resource interference between CPU and GPU applications is difficult. We show that GPU applications tend to monopolize the shared hardware resources, such as memory and network, because of their high thread-level parallelism (TLP), and discuss the limitations of existing GPU-based concurrency management techniques when employed in heterogeneous systems. To solve this problem, we propose an integrated concurrency management strategy that modulates the TLP in GPUs to control the performance of both CPU and GPU applications. This mechanism considers both GPU core state and system-wide memory and network congestion information to dynamically decide on the level of GPU concurrency to maximize system performance. We propose and evaluate two schemes: one (CM-CPU) for boosting CPU performance in the presence of GPU interference, the other (CM-BAL) for improving both CPU and GPU performance in a balanced manner and thus overall system performance. Our evaluations show that the first scheme improves average CPU performance by 24%, while reducing average GPU performance by 11%. The second scheme provides 7% average performance improvement for both CPU and GPU applications. We also show that our solution allows the user to control performance trade-offs between CPUs and GPUs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations130
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207