Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe memory reclamation (SMR) algorithms suffer from a trade-off between bounding unreclaimed memory and the speed of reclamation. Hazard pointer (HP) based algorithms bound unreclaimed memory at all times, but tend to be slower than other approaches. Epoch based reclamation (EBR) algorithms are faster, but do not bound memory reclamation. Other algorithms follow hybrid approaches, requiring special compiler or hardware support, changes to record layouts, and/or extensive code changes. Not all SMR algorithms can be used to reclaim memory for all data structures. We propose a new neutralization based reclamation (NBR) algorithm that is faster than the best known EBR algorithms and achieves bounded unreclaimed memory. It is non-blocking when used with a non-blocking operating system (OS) kernel, and only requires atomic read, write and CAS. NBR is straightforward to use with many different data structures, and in most cases, require similar reasoning and programmer effort to two-phased locking. NBR is implemented using OS signals and a lightweight handshaking mechanism between participating threads to determine when it is safe to reclaim a record. Experiments on a lock-based binary search tree and a lazy linked list show that NBR significantly outperforms many state of the art reclamation algorithms. In the tree NBR is faster than next best algorithm, DEBRA by upto 38% and HP by upto 17%. And, in the list NBR is 15% and 243% faster than DEBRA and HP, respectively.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".