MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138542739 · doi:10.1109/icsamos.2006.300804

On the Evaluation of Dense Chip-Multiprocessor Architectures

2006· article· en· W2138542739 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francisco J. Villa, Manuel E. Acacio, José M. Garcı́a

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsComputer scienceCache coherenceMESI protocolDirectoryInterconnectionMESIF protocolMultiprocessingEmbedded systemCache algorithmsCacheIndirectionComputer architectureArchitectureParallel computingCPU cacheOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chip-multiprocessors (CMPs) have been revealed as the most promising way of making efficient use of current improvements in integration scale. Nowadays, commercial CMP releases integrate at most 8 processor cores onto the chip. However, 16 or more processor cores are expected to be offered in near future dense-CMP (D-CMP) systems. In this way, these architectures impose new design restrictions, and some topics, such as the cache-coherence problem, must be reviewed. In this paper we present an exhaustive performance evaluation of two recently proposed D-CMP architectures, making special emphasis on the solution to the cache-coherence problem that each one of them introduces. The shared bus fabric architecture (SBF) features a snoop cache-coherence protocol and is based on a high-performance bus fabric interconnection network. The second architecture follows a directory-based approach and integrates a bi-dimensional mesh as the interconnection network. Our results show that the performance achieved by the SBF architecture is hard-limited by the bandwidth restrictions of the bus fabric. On the other hand, the directory-based architecture outperforms the SBF one, but presents some performance inefficiencies due to the additional indirection that the directory structure stored in the L2 cache level introduces

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207