DepGraph: Localizing Performance Bottlenecks in Multi-Core Applications Using Waiting Dependency Graphs and Software Tracing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the challenge of understanding the waiting dependencies between the threads and hardware resources required to complete a task. The objective is to improve software performance by detecting the underlying bottlenecks caused by system-level blocking dependencies. In this paper, we use a system level tracing approach to extract a Waiting Dependency Graph that shows the breakdown of a task execution among all the interleaving threads and resources. The method allows developers and system administrators to quickly discover how the total execution time is divided among its interacting threads and resources. Ultimately, the method helps detecting bottlenecks and highlighting their possible causes. Our experiments show the effectiveness of the proposed approach in several industry-level use cases. Three performance anomalies are analysed and explained using the proposed approach. Evaluating the method efficiency reveals that the imposed overhead never exceeds 10.1%, therefore making it suitable for in-production environments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it