MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254434605 · doi:10.1002/spe.991

Synchronization for fast and reentrant operating system kernel tracing

2010· article· en· W4254434605 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Desnoyers, Michel Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTracingInterruptKernel (algebra)DebuggingLinux kernelThread (computing)Synchronization (alternating current)SemaphoreOperating systemTRACE (psycholinguistics)Parallel computingReal-time computingDistributed computingEmbedded systemComputer networkMicrocontroller

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To effectively trace an operating system, a performance monitoring and debugging infrastructure needs the ability to trace various execution contexts. These contexts range from kernel running as a thread toNon‐Maskable Interrupt(NMI) contexts. Given that any part of the kernel infrastructure used by a kernel tracer could lead to infinite recursion if traced, and because most kernel primitives require synchronization unsuitable for some execution contexts, all interactions of the tracing code with the existing kernel infrastructure must be considered in order to correctly inter‐operate with the existing operating system kernel. This paper presents a new low overhead tracing mechanism and motivates the choice of synchronization sequences suitable for operating system kernel tracing, namelylocal atomic instructionsas main buffer synchronization primitive and theRead–Copy Update(RCU) mechanism to control tracing. It also proposes a wait‐free algorithm extending the time‐base needed by the tracer to 64‐bit on architectures that lack hardware 64‐bit time‐base support. Copyright © 2010 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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