MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156742168 · doi:10.1145/1133255.1133995

Shared memory programming for large scale machines

2006· article· en· W2156742168 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Barton, Călin Caşcaval, George Almási, Yili Zheng, Montse Farreras, Siddhartha Chatterje, José Nelson Amaral

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsComputer scienceCompilerParallel computingScalabilityRuntime systemDistributed memoryPartitioned global address spaceOptimizing compilerProgramming paradigmShared memoryAsynchronous communicationProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the design and implementation of a scalable run-time system and an optimizing compiler for Unified Parallel C (UPC). An experimental evaluation on BlueGene/L®, a distributed-memory machine, demonstrates that the combination of the compiler with the runtime system produces programs with performance comparable to that of efficient MPI programs and good performance scalability up to hundreds of thousands of processors.Our runtime system design solves the problem of maintaining shared object consistency efficiently in a distributed memory machine. Our compiler infrastructure simplifies the code generated for parallel loops in UPC through the elimination of affinity tests, eliminates several levels of indirection for accesses to segments of shared arrays that the compiler can prove to be local, and implements remote update operations through a lower-cost asynchronous message. The performance evaluation uses three well-known benchmarks --- HPC RandomAccess, HPC STREAM and NAS CG --- to obtain scaling and absolute performance numbers for these benchmarks on up to 131072 processors, the full BlueGene/L machine. These results were used to win the HPC Challenge Competition at SC05 in Seattle WA, demonstrating that PGAS languages support both productivity and performance.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207