A hardware evaluation of cache partitioning to improve utilization and energy-efficiency while preserving responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computing workloads often contain a mix of interactive, latency-sensitive foreground applications and recurring background computations. To guarantee responsiveness, interactive and batch applications are often run on disjoint sets of resources, but this incurs additional energy, power, and capital costs. In this paper, we evaluate the potential of hardware cache partitioning mechanisms and policies to improve efficiency by allowing background applications to run simultaneously with interactive foreground applications, while avoiding degradation in interactive responsiveness. We evaluate these tradeoffs using commercial x86 multicore hardware that supports cache partitioning, and find that real hardware measurements with full applications provide different observations than past simulation-based evaluations. Co-scheduling applications without LLC partitioning leads to a 10% energy improvement and average throughput improvement of 54% compared to running tasks separately, but can result in foreground performance degradation of up to 34% with an average of 6%. With optimal static LLC partitioning, the average energy improvement increases to 12% and the average throughput improvement to 60%, while the worst case slowdown is reduced noticeably to 7% with an average slowdown of only 2%. We also evaluate a practical low-overhead dynamic algorithm to control partition sizes, and are able to realize the potential performance guarantees of the optimal static approach, while increasing background throughput by an additional 19%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".