MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379620258 · doi:10.1145/3555776.3577631

Tracking Coherence-Related Contention Delays in Real-Time Multicore Systems

2023· article· en· W4379620258 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Pujol, Mohamed Hassan, Hamid Tabani, Jaume Abella, Francisco J. Cazorla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEuropean Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceCache coherenceThread (computing)Multi-core processorCacheMultithreadingKey (lock)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Distributed computingParallel computingInstruction setEmbedded systemCPU cacheReal-time computingOperating systemCache algorithms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevailing use of multicores in Embedded Critical Systems (ECS) is multi-application workloads in which independent applications run in different cores with data sharing restricted to the communication between applications and the real-time operating system. However, thread-level parallelism is increasingly used, e.g., OpenMP, in ECS to improve individual applications' performance. At the hardware level, we are witnessing increased research efforts to master and improve multicore cache coherence that plays a key role enabling efficient data sharing among threads. Despite these efforts, the limited information provided by performance monitoring counters on cache coherence limits the understanding of coherence's impact on tasks execution time and hence, poses severe constraints to estimate tight worst-case execution time bounds. In this line, this work contributes with an analysis of the impact that cache coherence can have on application timing behavior, and a new set of low-overhead performance monitoring counters that can be used to track the coherence-related contention that different threads can cause on each other when sharing data. Our results show that the proposed performance monitoring counters effectively capture all coherence-related contention that tasks can suffer and hence are key for parallel software timing validation and verification in ECS. Furthermore, they help application optimization by providing key information about data sharing among the application threads.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207