Aggregating Funnels for Faster Fetch&Add and Queues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many concurrent algorithms require processes to perform fetch-and-add operations on a single memory location, which can be a hot spot of contention. We present a novel algorithm called Aggregating Funnels that reduces this contention by spreading the fetch-and-add operations across multiple memory locations. It aggregates fetch-and-add operations into batches so that the batch can be performed by a single hardware fetch-and-add instruction on one location and all operations in the batch can efficiently compute their results by performing a fetch-and-add instruction on a different location. We show experimentally that this approach achieves higher throughput than previous combining techniques, such as Combining Funnels, and is substantially more scalable than applying hardware fetch-and-add instructions on a single memory location. We show that replacing the fetch-and-add instructions in the fastest state-of-the-art concurrent queue by our Aggregating Funnels eliminates a bottleneck and greatly improves the queue's overall throughput.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".