MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404954401 · doi:10.1109/micro61859.2024.00070

Uncovering Real GPU NoC Characteristics: Implications on Interconnect Architecture

2024· article· en· W4404954401 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian E. La Rocca, Jiho Kim, Hans Kasan, Minsoo Rhu, Ali Bakhoda, Tor M. Aamodt, John Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectureInterconnectionComputer architectureParallel computingEmbedded systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical component of high-throughput processors such as GPUs is the network-on-chip (NoC) that interconnects the large number of cores and the memory partitions together. In this work, we provide a detailed analysis, in terms of latency and bandwidth, of real GPU NoC across several generations of modern NVIDIA GPUs. Our analysis identifies how non-uniform latency exists between the cores and the memory partitions based on their physical location in the GPU. The non-uniformity can result in up to approximately 70 % difference in on-chip latency. In comparison, the bandwidth provided from the cores to the memory partitions is approximately uniform. However, recent GPUs that consist of multiple GPU “partitions” present different on-chip latency and bandwidth characteristics when communicating between the partitions. Based on our analysis of real GPU interconnect, we discuss potential implications including its impact on timing used in side-channel attacks as well as NoC microarchitectures. We show how the non-uniform latency can be exploited in a timing side-channel attack within a GPU as the core location impacts performance (or timing). In addition, proper understanding (and proper assumptions) of GPU NoC is critical to ensure a network that does not bottleneck the overall system performance.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207