Partitioning and Selection of Data Consistency Mechanisms for Multicore Real-Time Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".