Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the end of Dennard scaling, architects have increasingly turned to special-purpose hardware accelerators to improve the performance and energy efficiency for some applications. Unfortunately, accelerators don't always live up to their expectations and may under-perform in some situations. Understanding the factors which effect the performance of an accelerator is crucial for both architects and programmers early in the design stage. Detailed models can be highly accurate, but often require low-level details which are not available until late in the design cycle. In contrast, simple analytical models can provide useful insights by abstracting away low-level system details. In this paper, we propose LogCA---a high-level performance model for hardware accelerators. LogCA helps both programmers and architects identify performance bounds and design bottlenecks early in the design cycle, and provide insight into which optimizations may alleviate these bottlenecks. We validate our model across a variety of kernels, ranging from sub-linear to super-linear complexities on both on-chip and off-chip accelerators. We also describe the utility of LogCA using two retrospective case studies. First, we discuss the evolution of interface design in SUN/Oracle's encryption accelerators. Second, we discuss the evolution of memory interface design in three different GPU architectures. In both cases, we show that the adopted design optimizations for these machines are similar to LogCA's suggested optimizations. We argue that architects and programmers can use insights from these retrospective studies for improving future designs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.079 |
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".