MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885177983 · doi:10.1109/ipdpsw.2018.00124

Barrier Synchronization: Simplified, Generalized, and Solved Without Mutual Exclusion

2018· article· en· W2885177983 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Aravind

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSynchronization (alternating current)Bulk synchronous parallelCorrectnessParallel computingDistributed computingMutual exclusionConcurrencyParallel algorithmConcurrent computingShared memoryComponent (thermodynamics)Node (physics)AlgorithmComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barrier synchronization is a fundamental concurrency issue encountered in a large number of concurrent and parallel applications that involve parallel processes cooperatively solving complex problems. Barrier synchronization essentially forces these parallel processes to wait until each one of them has reached a certain point in execution. Therefore, barrier synchronization has been considered as an inevitable synchronization construct for most parallel applications. Hence barrier synchronization or its variant has become an integral component of the most widely used parallel programming models such as OpenMP, MPI, MapReduce, and the bulk synchronous parallel (BSP) models. A recent work stated that the performance of BSP model depends on 4 parameters - the number of nodes, the speed of each node, the communication cost, and the synchronization cost. Among these, the synchronization cost is considered critical in improving the performance of any BSP implementation. From parallel algorithm design and implementation perspective, we consider that the synchronization component is the most important one and its cost is the most critical performance factor for almost all the parallel programming models including BSP. This paper presents a class of simple barrier synchronization algorithms for shared memory systems. It includes general, efficient, and universal algorithms that are appealing from both practical and theoretical point of view. The correctness of the algorithms are proved. The algorithms are briefly analyzed to expose their strengths and weaknesses.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207