MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548294119 · doi:10.1109/newcas.2016.7604761

A fast systolic priority queue architecture for a flow-based Traffic Manager

2016· article· en· W2548294119 on OpenAlexaff
Imad Benacer, François-Raymond Boyer, Normand Bélanger, Yvon Savaria

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork packetComputer networkField-programmable gate arrayPacket processingScheduling (production processes)QueueArchitectureUSableLatency (audio)Network processorEmbedded systemReal-time computingTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a fast systolic priority queue architecture usable in a traffic manager. The purpose of the traffic manager is to schedule the departure of packets on egress ports in a network processing unit. In the context of this work, this scheduling should ensure that packets are sent in such a way to meet the allowed bandwidth quotas for each packet flow. Also, an important goal is to reduce latency to a minimum in order to best support the upcoming 5G wireless standards. The proposed hardware architecture of the systolic priority queue enables pipelined en/dequeue operations at constant time rate. Detailed description of this processing module is provided, together with the associated algorithm, and the architecture of the traffic manager. The implemented architecture is based on the C coding language and is synthesized with the Vivado High Level Synthesis tool. The obtained results are compared across a range of priority queue depths and performance metrics with existing approaches. A throughput improvement of 44% is claimed over best previously reported results. The proposed design of the traffic manager works at 118 MHz when implemented on a Kintex-7 FPGA from Xilinx.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207