MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146849645 · doi:10.1109/ipdpsw.2014.202

Reducing Static and Dynamic Power of L1 Data  Caches in GPGPUs

2014· article· en· W2146849645 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Atoofian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCacheParallel computingBottleneckCache pollutionCache invalidationSmart CachePage cacheCache algorithmsCPU cacheOperating systemEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the widespread adoption of GPGPUs for general purpose computing domain, the size of GPGPUs has grown quickly, making power consumption a major bottleneck. L1 data caches boost performance of processors by hiding latency of memory but consume significant power as they need to serve many processing cores. We propose two optimization techniques to reduce static and dynamic power of L1 data caches in GPGPUs.The first optimization technique reduces static power of L1 data cache by placing cache blocks into drowsy mode immediately after each access. In GPGPUs, the cache blocks are idle for long intervals. Hence, moving a cache block into drowsy state immediately after each access reduces leakage power significantly with negligible performance impact. The second optimization technique targets dynamic power of L1 data cache. Due to branch divergence, threads within a warp may follow different paths of execution. This may result in inactive threads within a warp. Existing GPGPUs access the whole cache blocks, ignoring inactive threads within a warp. We use active mask of GPGPUs and access only the portion of cache blocks that are required by active threads. By dynamically disabling unnecessary sections of cache blocks, we are able to reduce dynamic power of caches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207