Staged memory scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When multiple processor (CPU) cores and a GPU integrated together on the same chip share the off-chip main memory, requests from the GPU can heavily interfere with requests from the CPU cores, leading to low system performance and starvation of CPU cores. Unfortunately, state-of-the-art application-aware memory scheduling algorithms are ineffective at solving this problem at low complexity due to the large amount of GPU traffic. A large and costly request buffer is needed to provide these algorithms with enough visibility across the global request stream, requiring relatively complex hardware implementations. This paper proposes a fundamentally new approach that decouples the memory controller's three primary tasks into three significantly simpler structures that together improve system performance and fairness, especially in integrated CPU-GPU systems. Our three-stage memory controller first groups requests based on row-buffer locality. This grouping allows the second stage to focus only on inter-application request scheduling. These two stages enforce high-level policies regarding performance and fairness, and therefore the last stage consists of simple per-bank FIFO queues (no further command reordering within each bank) and straightforward logic that deals only with low-level DRAM commands and timing. We evaluate the design trade-offs involved in our Staged Memory Scheduler (SMS) and compare it against three state-of-the-art memory controller designs. Our evaluations show that SMS improves CPU performance without degrading GPU frame rate beyond a generally acceptable level, while being significantly less complex to implement than previous application-aware schedulers. Furthermore, SMS can be configured by the system software to prioritize the CPU or the GPU at varying levels to address different performance needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".