MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997094414 · doi:10.1145/1837853.1693496

Towards scalable and transparent parallelization of multiplayer games using transactional memory support

2010· article· en· W2997094414 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Lupei, Bogdan Simion, Don Pinto, Matthew Misler, Mihai Burcea, William Krick, Cristiana Amza

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware transactional memoryTransactional memoryScalabilityQuake (natural phenomenon)Lock (firearm)Parallel computingDistributed computingProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work addresses the problem of parallelizing multiplayer games using software Transactional Memory (STM) support. Using a realistic high impact application, we show that STM provides not only ease of programming, but also better performance than that achievable with state-of-the-art lock-based programming. Towards this goal, we use SynQuake, a game benchmark which extracts the main data structures and the essential features of the popular multiplayer game Quake, but can be driven with a synthetic workload generator that flexibly emulates client game actions and various hot-spot scenarios in the game world. We implement, evaluate and compare the STM version of SynQuake with a state-of-the-art lock-based parallelization of Quake, which we ported to SynQuake. While in STM-SynQuake support for maintaining the consistency of each potentially complex game action is automatic, conservative locking of surrounding objects within a bounding box for the duration of the game action is inherently needed in lock-based SynQuake. This leads to a higher scalability factor of STM-SynQuake versus lock-based SynQuake, due to a higher degree of false sharing in the latter.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGPLAN NoticesSame topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207