MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127327396 · doi:10.1145/3379483

User-level Threading

2020· article· en· W3127327396 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

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThreading (protein sequence)ConcurrencyThread (computing)ScalabilityMultithreadingPOSIX ThreadsServerConcurrent object-oriented programmingProgramming paradigmBenchmark (surveying)SoftwareDistributed computingParallel computingOperating systemProgramming languageReactive programmingInductive programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important class of computer software, such as network servers, exhibits concurrency through many loosely coupled and potentially long-running communication sessions. For these applications, a long-standing open question is whether thread-per-session programming can deliver comparable performance to event-driven programming. This paper clearly demonstrates, for the first time, that it is possible to employ user-level threading for building thread-per-session applications without compromising functionality, efficiency, performance, or scalability. We present the design and implementation of a general-purpose, yet nimble, user-level M:N threading runtime that is built from scratch to accomplish these objectives. Its key components are efficient and effective load balancing and user-level I/O blocking. While no other runtime exists with comparable characteristics, an important fundamental finding of this work is that building this runtime does not require particularly intricate data structures or algorithms. The runtime is thus a straightforward existence proof for user-level threading without performance compromises and can serve as a reference platform for future research. It is evaluated in comparison to event-driven software, system-level threading, and several other user-level threading runtimes. An experimental evaluation is conducted using benchmark programs, as well as the popular Memcached application. We demonstrate that our user-level runtime outperforms other threading runtimes and enables thread-per-session programming at high levels of concurrency and hardware parallelism without sacrificing performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.185 · 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