MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236073229 · doi:10.1002/cpe.1454

Improving energy efficiency of asymmetric chip multithreaded multiprocessors through reduced OS noise scheduling

2009· article· en· W4236073229 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan E. Grant, Ahmad Afsahi

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMultiprocessingMultithreadingEmbedded systemScheduling (production processes)Context switchThread (computing)Multi-core processorEfficient energy useXeonChipOperating systemParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The performance of the emerging chip multithreaded symmetric multiprocessors (SMPs) is of great importance to the high performance computing community. However, the growing power consumption of such systems is of increasing concern, and techniques that can be used to increase the overall system power efficiency while sustaining the performance are very desirable. Operating system (OS) noise can have a dramatic effect on the system performance. Effectively handling the smaller OS tasks while simultaneously preserving application thread synchronicity leads to gains in the overall system efficiency. Recently, under a fixed power budget, asymmetric multiprocessors (AMP) have been proposed to improve the performance of multithreaded applications. An AMP in this context is a multiprocessor system in which its processors are not operating at the same frequency. This paper proposes two simple scheduling methods that reduce the impact of OS noise, while simultaneously taking advantage of an opportunity to increase the overall machine energy efficiency on AMP servers. Prototyping AMPs on a commercial 2‐way dual‐core Hyper‐Threaded (HT) Intel Xeon SMP server, using real power measurements across six SPEC OpenMP applications, indicates that the first proposed scheduler performs better on average for HT‐enabled systems, whereas the second scheduler is superior on average for HT‐disabled systems. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207