MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345041994 · doi:10.1145/2927964.2927968

A Case Study in Reverse Engineering GPGPUs

2016· article· en· W2345041994 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

VenueACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCUDAKeplerKey (lock)Set (abstract data type)Parallel computingInstruction setScience and engineeringComputer architectureOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During recent years, GPU micro-architectures have changed dramatically, evolving into powerful many-core deep-multithreaded platforms for parallel workloads. While important micro-architectural modifications continue to appear in every new generation of these processors, unfortunately, little is known about the details of these innovative designs. One of the key questions in understanding GPUs is how they deal with outstanding memory misses. Our goal in this study is to find answers to this question. To this end, we develop a set of micro-benchmarks in CUDA to understand the outstanding memory requests handling resources. Particularly, we study two NVIDIA GPGPUs (Fermi and Kepler) and estimate their capability in handling outstanding memory requests. We show that Kepler can issue nearly 32X higher number of outstanding memory requests, compared to Fermi. We explain this enhancement by Kepler's architectural modifications in outstanding memory request handling resources.

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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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