MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149296502 · doi:10.1145/2420936.2420937

Impact of compiler optimizations on voltage droops and reliability of an SMT, multi-core processor

2012· article· en· W2149296502 on OpenAlexaff
Young-Taek Kim, Lizy K. John, Srilatha Manne, Michael Schulte, Sanjay Pant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCompilerComputer scienceOptimizing compilerVoltageCPU core voltageParallel computingInterprocedural optimizationReliability (semiconductor)Power (physics)Embedded systemLoop optimizationElectronic engineeringVoltage regulatorVoltage optimisationElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ultra-low power era, one of the most effective ways of reducing power consumption is to lower supply voltage level. When programs execute on processors, voltage fluctuations can occur due to sudden changes in current draw between successive instructions. Such voltage fluctuations can reduce the voltage levels below acceptable levels and cause unreliable operation in microprocessors. Voltage droops due to di/dt effects have been studied in the past, however no prior work studies the effect of compiler optimizations on voltage droops. Past work has studied the impact of compiler optimizations on performance and power, but not reliability. In this paper, we analyze voltage droops with different compiler optimization levels. We also report corresponding performance, power and energy results to put the results into perspective. No clear trends could be observed regarding the effect of compiler optimizations on voltage droops. We conclude that dynamic voltage noise mitigation is necessary because we cannot guarantee voltage noise reduction with static compiler optimization.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207