MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230430964 · doi:10.1145/2830555

A Survey on Cache Management Mechanisms for Real-Time Embedded Systems

2015· review· en· W2230430964 on OpenAlexaff
Giovani Gracioli, Ahmed Alhammad, Renato Mancuso, Antônio Augusto Fröhlich, Rodolfo Pellizzoni

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMulti-core processorCacheMemory hierarchyPredictabilityKey (lock)Context (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Computer architectureEmbedded systemDistributed computingParallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicore processors are being extensively used by real-time systems, mainly because of their demand for increased computing power. However, multicore processors have shared resources that affect the predictability of real-time systems, which is the key to correctly estimate the worst-case execution time of tasks. One of the main factors for unpredictability in a multicore processor is the cache memory hierarchy. Recently, many research works have proposed different techniques to deal with caches in multicore processors in the context of real-time systems. Nevertheless, a review and categorization of these techniques is still an open topic and would be very useful for the real-time community. In this article, we present a survey of cache management techniques for real-time embedded systems, from the first studies of the field in 1990 up to the latest research published in 2014. We categorize the main research works and provide a detailed comparison in terms of similarities and differences. We also identify key challenges and discuss future research directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicReal-Time Systems SchedulingFrench-language works237,207