A case for NUMA-aware contention management on multicore systems
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.
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, to 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 state-of-the-art contention management algorithms fail to be effective on NUMA systems and may even hurt performance relative to a default OS scheduler. In this paper we investigate the causes for this behavior and design the first contention-aware algorithm for NUMA systems. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it