MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004399614 · doi:10.1109/icfpt47387.2019.00046

ASAP: Automatic Sizing and Partitioning for Dynamic Memory Heaps in High-Level Synthesis

2019· article· en· W3004399614 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeap (data structure)Computer scienceParallel computingC dynamic memory allocationDynamic random-access memorySizingSuiteEmbedded systemMemory managementComputer hardwareOverlayOperating systemAlgorithmSemiconductor memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient high-level synthesis (HLS) of dynamic memory allocation techniques (malloc() and free()) simplifies the compilation of algorithms with runtime-varying memory requirements to hardware designs. Existing HLS memory allocation frameworks often degrade performance and area, while simultaneously introducing even more parameters to optimize (e.g. heap depth, heap assignments to program logic). We address these concerns with ASAP (Automatic Sizing and Partitioning), a dynamic memory allocation framework for HLS tools. ASAP provides (1) automatic heap depth selection through dynamic analysis of an application, (2) automatic heap partitioning (through static analysis) to provide parallelism from program logic to memory, improving performance. We demonstrate that ASAP is able to improve performance and reduce cycle latencies compared with non-heap-partitioned designs, with speed-ups up to ~ 5× when applied to common memory patterns, and up to ~ 2× improvement when applied to a suite of dynamic-memory intensive applications.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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