MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613380095 · doi:10.1109/hpca.2017.40

Efficient Sequential Consistency in GPUs via Relativistic Cache Coherence

2017· article· en· W2613380095 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaowei Ren, Mieszko Lis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConsistency modelParallel computingCache coherenceSequential consistencyThread (computing)CacheCPU cacheOperating systemData consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work has argued that sequential consistency (SC) in GPUs can perform on par with weak memory models, provided ordering stalls are made less frequent by relaxing ordering for private and read-only data. In this paper, we address the complementary problem of reducing stall latencies for both read-only and read-write data. We find that SC stalls are particularly problematic for workloads with inter-workgroup sharing, and occur primarily due to earlier stores in the same thread; a substantial part of the overhead comes from the need to stall until write permissions are obtained (to ensure write atomicity). To address this, we propose RCC, a GPU coherence protocol which grants write permissions without stalling but can still be used to implement SC. RCC uses logical timestamps to determine a global memory order and L1 read permissions; even though each core may see a different logical "time," SC ordering can still be maintained. Unlike previous GPU SC proposals, our design does not require invasive core changes and additional per-core storage to classify read-only/private data. For workloads with interworkgroup sharing overall performance is 29% better and energy is 25% less than in best previous GPU SC proposals, and within 7% of the best non-SC design.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207