MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143700077 · doi:10.1145/2678373.2665701

Fine-grain task aggregation and coordination on GPUs

2014· article· en· W2143700077 on OpenAlexaff
Marc S. Orr, Bradford M. Beckmann, Steven K. Reinhardt, David A. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingProgrammerThread (computing)CompilerGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsRuntime systemProgramming languageGraphicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general-purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU) computing, data is processed by concurrent threads execut-ing the same function. This model, dubbed single-instruction/multiple-thread (SIMT), requires programmers to coordinate the synchronous execution of similar opera-tions across thousands of data elements. To alleviate this programmer burden, Gaster and Howes outlined the chan-nel abstraction, which facilitates dynamically aggregating asynchronously produced fine-grain work into coarser-grain tasks. However, no practical implementation has been proposed To this end, we propose and evaluate the first channel im-plementation. To demonstrate the utility of channels, we present a case study that maps the fine-grain, recursive task spawning in the Cilk programming language to channels by representing it as a flow graph. To support data-parallel recursion in bounded memory, we propose a hardware mechanism that allows wavefronts to yield their execution resources. Through channels and wavefront yield, we im-plement four Cilk benchmarks. We show that Cilk can scale with the GPU architecture, achieving speedups of as much as 4.3x on eight compute units

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture NewsSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207