MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214586203 · doi:10.1145/3410048.3410100

User-level Threading

2020· article· en· W4214586203 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Karsten, Saman Barghi

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThreading (protein sequence)ConcurrencyScalabilityThread (computing)MultithreadingPOSIX ThreadsProgramming paradigmConcurrent object-oriented programmingServerBenchmark (surveying)Session (web analytics)Distributed 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 threadper- 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation ReviewSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207