MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794802501 · doi:10.1109/hpca.2018.00029

High-Performance GPU Transactional Memory via Eager Conflict Detection

2018· article· en· W2794802501 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaowei Ren, Mieszko Lis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTransactional memoryParallel computingThread (computing)Cache coherenceConcurrencyCacheLatency (audio)Multi-core processorCAS latencyScalabilityOperating systemCPU cacheCache algorithmsDatabase transaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GPUs transactional memory (TM) proposals to date have relied on lazy, value-based conflict detection, assuming that GPUs can amortize the latency by executing other warps. In practice, however, concurrency must be throttled to a few warps per core to avoid high abort rates, and TM performance has remained far below that of fine-grained locks. We trace this to the latency cost of validating transactions: two round trips across the crossbar required for most commits and aborts. With limited concurrency, the warp scheduler cannot amortize this, and leaves the core idle most of the time. In this paper, we show that value-based validation does not scale to high thread counts, and eager conflict detection becomes more efficient as the number of threads grows. We leverage this insight to propose GETM, a GPU TM with eager conflict detection. GETM relies on a novel distributed logical clock scheme to implement eager conflict detection without the need for cache coherence or signature broadcasts. GETM is up to 2.1 times faster than the state-of-the art prior work WarpTM (gmean 1.2 times), with 3.6 times lower silicon area overheads and 2.2 times lower power overheads.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207