MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280924807 · doi:10.1109/hipc.2015.25

Characterizing Large Dataset GPU Compute Workloads Targeting Systems with Die-Stacked Memory

2015· article· en· W2280924807 on OpenAlexaff
Srividya Ramanathan, Gautam Hazari, Kanishka Lahiri, Francesco Spadini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMemory bandwidthMemory footprintParallel computingCacheSolverComputer architectureOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing adoption of GPUs as mainstream computing devices, coupled with the imminent availability of large high-bandwidth caches based on die-stacked memory makes it important to analyze and understand modern GPU compute applications from the perspective of their memory access and data reuse characteristics. This paper presents detailed workload characterization studies on four GPU compute applications that process large data sets. The applications studied include tree traversal and search algorithms, a partial differential equation (PDE) solver, and a synthetic array processing application. Our studies indicate that while the memory footprint consumed by these applications can be very large, the effectiveness of several GB worth of cache may vary significantly across workloads. This suggests that provisioning cache resources in a die-stacked memory based system needs to be done very carefully, through detailed characterization of target workloads. An added benefit of our work was the discovery that accurate memory characterization data can lead to a significantly more optimized strategy for scheduling GPU threads by taking advantage of a workload's access characteristics. In particular, for the PDE solver, our analysis led to an optimization that achieved 30% measured gain in application performance. This paper also describes our analysis methodology for conducting these types of studies. The methodology is based on trace analysis, where the traces capture memory traffic and calls to the GPU compute API. For each application we highlight the characterization metrics and analysis techniques that were most useful in generating insights about their memory access patterns.

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 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)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207