Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we continue to be able to put an increasing number of transistors on a single chip, the answer to the perpetual question of what the best processor we could build with the transistors is remains uncertain. Past work has shown that heterogeneous multiprocessor systems provide benefits in performance and efficiency. This thesis explores heterogeneous systems composed of a traditional sequential processor (CPU) and highly parallel graphics processors (GPU). This thesis presents a tightly-coupled heterogeneous chip multiprocessor architecture for general-purpose non-graphics computation and a limit study exploring the potential benefits of GPU-like cores for accelerating a set of general-purpose workloads. Pangaea is a heterogeneous CMP design for non-rendering workloads that integrates IA32 CPU cores with GMA X4500 GPU cores. Pangaea introduces a resource partitioning of the GPU, where 3D graphics-specific hardware is removed to reduce area or add more processing cores, and a 3-instruction extension to the IA32 ISA that supports fast communication between CPU and GPU by building user-level interrupts on top of existing cache coherency mechanisms. By removing graphics-specific hardware on a 65 nm process, the area saved is equivalent to 9 GPU cores, while the power saved is equivalent to 5 cores. Our FPGA prototype shows thread spawn latency improvements from thousands of clock cycles to 26. A set of non-graphics workloads demonstrate speedups of up to 8.8x. This thesis also presents a limit study, where we measure the limit of algorithm parallelism in the context of a heterogeneous system that can be usefully extracted from a set of general-purpose applications. We measure sensitivity to the sequential performance (register read-after-write latency) of the low-cost parallel cores, and latency and bandwidth of the communication channel between the two cores. Using these measurements, we propose system characteristics that maximize area and power efficiencies. As in previous limit studies, we find a high amount of parallelism. We show, however, that the potential speedup on GPU-like systems is low (2.2x - 12.7x) due to poor sequential performance. Communication latency and bandwidth have comparatively small performance effects (<25%). Optimal area efficiency requires a lower-cost parallel processor while optimal power efficiency requires a higher-performance parallel processor than today's GPUs.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".