MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312547955 · doi:10.1109/ic2e55432.2022.00030

Workload-aware Dynamic GPU Resource Management in Component-based Applications

2022· article· en· W4312547955 on OpenAlexaff
Hoda Sedighi, Dániel Géhberger, Roch Glitho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Concordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Component (thermodynamics)WorkloadCloud computingDistributed computingCUDAGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsHuman multitaskingGraphicsResource allocationSupercomputerThroughputParallel computingShared memoryOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In edge and cloud environments, using graphics processing units (GPUs) as a high-speed parallel computing device increases the performance of compute-intensive applications. Nowadays, due to the increase in the volume and complexity of data to be processed, GPUs are more actively used in component-based applications. As a result, the sequence of multiple interdependent components is co-located on the GPU and shares GPU resources. The overall application performance in this kind of application depends on the data transfer overhead and the performance of each component in the sequence. Managing the components' competitive use of shared GPU resources faces various challenges. The lack of a low-overhead and online technique for dynamic GPU resource allocation leads to imbalanced GPU usage and penalizes the overall performance. In this paper, we present efficient GPU memory and resource managers that improve overall system performance by using shared memory and dynamically assigning portions of shared GPU resources. The portions are based on the components' workload and throughput-based performance analyzer while guaranteeing the application's progress. The evaluation results show that our dynamic resource allocation method is able to improve the average performance of the applications with the various number of concurrent components by up to 29.81% over the default GPU concurrent multitasking. We also show that using shared memory results in 2x performance improvements.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207