MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169665207 · doi:10.1145/1854273.1854350

A case for NUMA-aware contention management on multicore systems

2010· article· en· W2169665207 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMemory hierarchyNon-uniform memory accessScheduling (production processes)Distributed computingLatency (audio)Uniform memory accessMulti-core processorInterleaved memoryFlat memory modelShared memoryCache-only memory architectureParallel computingMemory managementOperating systemCacheSemiconductor memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On multicore systems contention for shared resources occurs when memory-intensive threads are co-scheduled on cores that share parts of the memory hierarchy, such as last-level caches and memory controllers. Previous work investigated how contention could be addressed via scheduling. A contention-aware scheduler separates competing threads onto separate memory hierarchy domains to eliminate resource sharing and, as a consequence, mitigate contention. However, all previous work on contention-aware scheduling assumed that the underlying system is UMA (uniform memory access latencies, single memory controller). Modern multicore systems, however, are NUMA, which means that they feature non-uniform memory access latencies and multiple memory controllers. We discovered that contention management is a lot more difficult on NUMA systems, because the scheduler must not only consider the placement of threads, but also the placement of their memory. This is mostly required to eliminate contention for memory controllers contrary to the popular belief that remote access latency is the dominant concern. In this work we quantify the effects on performance imposed by resource contention and remote access latency. This analysis inspires the design of a contention-aware scheduling algorithm for NUMA systems. This algorithm significantly outperforms a NUMA-unaware algorithm proposed before as well as the default Linux scheduler. We also investigate memory migration strategies, which are the necessary part of the NUMA contention-aware scheduling algorithm. Finally, we propose and evaluate a new contention management algorithm that is priority-aware.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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