Region-Based Data Layout via Data Reuse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-structure splicing techniques, such as structure splitting, field reordering, and pointer inlining reorganize data structures to improve cache and translation look-aside buffer (TLB) utilization. Structure types are typically transformed globally in the program, requiring updates to all references to elements of a transformed type. These techniques often rely on instrumentation, tracing, or sampling to create models that guide their transformations. Furthermore, compilers often cannot prove that their transformations are legal and must rely on manual inspection and manual transformation. Applying data-layout transformations locally -- as opposed to globally -- to regions of code removes the need for expensive profiling and simplifies legality verification. This work introduces RebaseDL, a static analysis that finds profitable and legal region-based data layout transformation opportunities that improve access locality. These opportunities are found within code regions that exhibit data reuse. Going beyond structure splicing, RebaseDL also identifies transformation opportunities that do not involve structure types, that is, it identifies data packing transformations. The analysis is implemented in LLVM and it detects multiple transformation opportunities within the SPEC CPU benchmark suite, where the transformation obtains speedups of up to 1.34x for transformed regions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".