MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083469609 · doi:10.5555/2133429.2133470

Credit borrow and repay: sharing DRAM with minimum latency and bandwidth guarantees

2010· article· en· W2083469609 on OpenAlexaff
Zefu Dai, Mark Jarvin, Jianwen Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Computer Aided Design · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDramLatency (audio)Computer networkCacheQuality of serviceScheduling (production processes)Bandwidth (computing)CAS latencyDistributed computingOperating systemComputer hardwareMemory controllerTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-port memory controllers (MPMC) play an important role in system-on-chips by coordinating accesses from different subsystems to shared DRAMs. The main challenge of MPMC design is optimize quality-of-service by simultaneously satisfying different---and often competing---requirements, including bandwidth and latency. While previous works have attempted to address the challenge, the proposed solutions are heuristic and often cannot provide bandwidth and/or latency guarantees. In this paper, we propose a new technique called Credit-Borrow-and-Repay (CBR) that augments a dynamic scheduling algorithm drawn from the networking community, improving it to achieve minimum latency while preserving minimum bandwidth guarantees. Our experiments show that on typical multimedia workloads, the cache response latency can be improved as much as 2.5X.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Computer Aided DesignSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207