A case for NUMA-aware contention management on multicore systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".