Analyzing memory management methods on integrated CPU-GPU systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneous systems that integrate a multicore CPU and a GPU on the same die are ubiquitous. On these systems, both the CPU and GPU share the same physical memory as opposed to using separate memory dies. Although integration eliminates the need to copy data between the CPU and the GPU, arranging transparent memory sharing between the two devices can carry large overheads. Memory on CPU/GPU systems is typically managed by a software framework such as OpenCL or CUDA, which includes a runtime library, and communicates with a GPU driver. These frameworks offer a range of memory management methods that vary in ease of use, consistency guarantees and performance. In this study, we analyze some of the common memory management methods of the most widely used software frameworks for heterogeneous systems: CUDA, OpenCL 1.2, OpenCL 2.0, and HSA, on NVIDIA and AMD hardware. We focus on performance/functionality trade-offs, with the goal of exposing their performance impact and simplifying the choice of memory management methods for programmers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it