Using Barrier Elision to Improve Transactional Code Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With chip manufacturers such as Intel, IBM, and ARM offering native support for transactional memory in their instruction set architectures, memory transactions are on the verge of being considered a genuine application tool rather than just an interesting research topic. Despite this recent increase in popularity on the hardware side of transactional memory (HTM) , software support for transactional memory (STM) is still scarce and the only compiler with transactional support currently available, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) , does not generate code that achieves desirable performance. For hybrid solutions of TM (HyTM) , which are frameworks that leverage the best aspects of HTM and STM, the subpar performance of the software side, caused by inefficient compiler generated code, might forbid HyTM to offer optimal results. This article extends previous work focused exclusively on STM implementations by presenting a detailed analysis of transactional code generated by GCC in the context of HybridTM implementations. In particular, it builds on previous research of transactional memory support in the Clang/LLVM compiler framework, which is decoupled from any TM runtime, and presents the following novel contributions: (a) it shows that STM’s performance overhead, due to an excessive amount of read and write barriers added by the compiler, also impacts the performance of HyTM systems; and (b) it reveals the importance of the previously proposed annotation mechanism to reduce the performance gap between HTM and STM in phased runtime systems. Furthermore, it shows that, by correctly using the annotations on just a few lines of code, it is possible to reduce the total number of instrumented barriers by 95% and to achieve speed-ups of up to 7× when compared to the original code generated by GCC and the Clang compiler. 1
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".