Survey of scheduling techniques for addressing shared resources in multicore processors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chip multicore processors (CMPs) have emerged as the dominant architecture choice for modern computing platforms and will most likely continue to be dominant well into the foreseeable future. As with any system, CMPs offer a unique set of challenges. Chief among them is the shared resource contention that results because CMP cores are not independent processors but rather share common resources among cores such as the last level cache (LLC). Shared resource contention can lead to severe and unpredictable performance impact on the threads running on the CMP. Conversely, CMPs offer tremendous opportunities for mulithreaded applications, which can take advantage of simultaneous thread execution as well as fast inter thread data sharing. Many solutions have been proposed to deal with the negative aspects of CMPs and take advantage of the positive. This survey focuses on the subset of these solutions that exclusively make use of OS thread-level scheduling to achieve their goals. These solutions are particularly attractive as they require no changes to hardware and minimal or no changes to the OS. The OS scheduler has expanded well beyond its original role of time-multiplexing threads on a single core into a complex and effective resource manager. This article surveys a multitude of new and exciting work that explores the diverse new roles the OS scheduler can successfully take on.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".