Co-Optimizing Cache Partitioning and Multi-Core Task Scheduling: Exploit Cache Sensitivity or Not?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cache partitioning techniques have been successfully adopted to mitigate interference among concurrently executing real-time tasks on multi-core processors. Considering that the execution time of a cache-sensitive task strongly depends on the cache available for it to use, co-optimizing cache partitioning and task allocation improves the system's schedulability. In this paper, we propose a hybrid multi-layer design space exploration technique to solve this multi-resource management problem. We explore the interplay between cache partitioning and schedulability by systematically interleaving three optimization layers, viz., (i) in the outer layer, we perform a breadth-first search combined with proactive pruning for cache partitioning; (ii) in the middle layer, we exploit a first-fit heuristic for allocating tasks to cores; and (iii) in the inner layer, we use the well-known recurrence relation for the schedulability analysis of non-preemptive fixed-priority (NP-FP) tasks in a uniprocessor setting. Although our focus is on NP-FP scheduling, we evaluate the flexibility of our framework in supporting different scheduling policies (NP-EDF, P-EDF) by plugging in appropriate analysis methods in the inner layer. Experiments show that, compared to the state-of-the-art techniques, the proposed framework can improve the real-time schedulability of NP-FP task sets by an average of 15.2% with a maximum improvement of 233.6% (when tasks are highly cache-sensitive) and a minimum of 1.6% (when cache sensitivity is low). For such task sets, we found that clustering similar- period (or mutually compatible) tasks often leads to higher schedulability (on average 7.6 %) than clustering by cache sensitivity. In our evaluation, the framework also achieves good results for preemptive and dynamic-priority scheduling policies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".