Addressing shared resource contention in multicore processors via scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contention for shared resources on multicore processors remains an unsolved problem in existing systems despite significant research efforts dedicated to this problem in the past. Previous solutions focused primarily on hardware techniques and software page coloring to mitigate this problem. Our goal is to investigate how and to what extent contention for shared resource can be mitigated via thread scheduling. Scheduling is an attractive tool, because it does not require extra hardware and is relatively easy to integrate into the system. Our study is the first to provide a comprehensive analysis of contention-mitigating techniques that use only scheduling. The most difficult part of the problem is to find a classification scheme for threads, which would determine how they affect each other when competing for shared resources. We provide a comprehensive analysis of such classification schemes using a newly proposed methodology that enables to evaluate these schemes separately from the scheduling algorithm itself and to compare them to the optimal. As a result of this analysis we discovered a classification scheme that addresses not only contention for cache space, but contention for other shared resources, such as the memory controller, memory bus and prefetching hardware. To show the applicability of our analysis we design a new scheduling algorithm, which we prototype at user level, and demonstrate that it performs within 2\% of the optimal. We also conclude that the highest impact of contention-aware scheduling techniques is not in improving performance of a workload as a whole but in improving quality of service or performance isolation for individual applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".