MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949359797 · doi:10.1145/3320271

Partitioning and Selection of Data Consistency Mechanisms for Multicore Real-Time Systems

2019· article· en· W2949359797 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

VenueACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReal-Time Systems Scheduling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityDistributed computingMulti-core processorScheduling (production processes)Integer programmingShared resourceHeuristicLock (firearm)Task (project management)Shared memoryBlocking (statistics)Parallel computingComputer networkMathematical optimizationAlgorithmOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicore platforms are becoming increasingly popular in real-time systems. One of the major challenges in designing multicore real-time systems is ensuring consistent and timely access to shared resources. Lock-based protection mechanisms such as MPCP and MSRP have been proposed to guarantee mutually exclusive access in multicore systems at the expense of blocking. In this article, we consider partitioning and scheduling in multicore real-time systems with resource sharing. We first propose a resource-aware task partitioning algorithm for systems with lock-based protection. Wait-free methods, which ensure consistent access to shared memory resources with negligible blocking at the expense of additional memory space, are a suitable alternative when the shared resource is a communication buffer. We propose several approaches to solve the joint problem of task partitioning and the selection of a data consistency mechanism (lock-based or wait-free). The problem is first formulated as an Integer Linear Programming (ILP). For large systems where an ILP solution is not scalable, we propose two heuristic algorithms. Experimental results compare the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in finding schedulable systems with low memory cost and show how the use of wait-free methods can significantly improve schedulability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.249 · 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