MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113401164 · doi:10.1145/1993316.1993573

Synchronization via scheduling

2011· article· en· W2113401164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsElectronic Arts (Canada)Simon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware transactional memoryTransactional memoryProgrammerDebuggingScheduling (production processes)RollbackDistributed computingParallel computingSynchronization (alternating current)Programming languageDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shared state access conflicts are one of the greatest sources of error for fine grained parallelism in any domain. Notoriously hard to debug, these conflicts reduce reliability and increase development time. The standard task graph model dictates that tasks with potential conflicting accesses to shared state must be linked by a dependency, even if there is no explicit logical ordering on their execution. In cases where it is difficult to understand if such implicit dependencies exist, the programmer often creates more dependencies than needed, which results in constrained graphs with large monolithic tasks and limited parallelism. We propose a new technique, Synchronization via Scheduling (SvS), that uses the results of static and dynamic code analysis to manage potential shared state conflicts by exposing the data accesses of each task to the scheduler. We present an in-depth performance analysis of SvS via examples from video games, our target domain, and show that SvS performs well in comparison to software transactional memory (TM) and fine grained mutexes.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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