MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157933512 · doi:10.1145/1242531.1242568

Speculative supplier identification for reducing power of interconnects in snoopy cache coherence protocols

2007· article· en· W2157933512 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Atoofian, Amirali Baniasadi, Kaveh Aasaraai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCache coherenceMESIF protocolMESI protocolCacheInterconnectionBus sniffingLatency (audio)Node (physics)Low latency (capital markets)Embedded systemComputer networkCPU cacheCache algorithmsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we reduce interconnect power dissipation in Symmetric Multiprocessors or SMPs. We revisit snoopy cache coherence protocols and reduce unnecessary interconnect activity by speculating nodes expected to provide a missing data. Conventional snoopy cache coherence protocols broadcast requests to all nodes, reducing the latency of cache to cache transfer misses at the expense of increasing interconnect power. We show that it is possible to reduce the associated power dissipation if such requests are broadcasted selectively and only to nodes more likely to provide the missing data. We reduce power as we limit access only to the interconnect components between the requester and the supplier node. We evaluate our technique using shared memory applications and show that it is possible to reduce interconnect power by 21% in a 4-way multiprocessor without compromising performance. This comes with negligible hardware overhead.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207