MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594266659 · doi:10.1002/cpe.4069

Hardware‐assisted software event tracing

2017· article· en· W2594266659 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

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracingComputer sciencex86DebuggingEmbedded systemSoftwareOverhead (engineering)Memory footprintOperating systemComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Event tracing is a reliable and a low‐intrusiveness method to debug and optimize systems and processes. Low overhead is particularly important in embedded systems where resources and energy consumption is critical. The most advanced tracing infrastructures achieve a very low footprint on the traced software, bringing each tracepoint overhead to less than a microsecond. To reduce this still non‐negligible impact, the use of dedicated hardware resources is promising. In this paper, we propose complementary methods for tracing that rely on hardware modules to assist software tracing. We designed solutions to take advantage of CoreSight STM, CoreSight ETM, and Intel BTS, which are present on most newer ARM‐based systems‐on‐chip and Intel x86 processors. Our results show that the time overhead for tracing can be reduced by up to 10 times when assisted by hardware, as compared to software tracing with LTTng, a high‐performance tracer for Linux. We also propose a modification to the Perf tool to speed BTS execution tracing up to 65%.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.314 · 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