Low-Latency Transaction Scheduling via Userspace Interrupts: Why Wait or Yield When You Can Preempt?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional non-preemptive scheduling can lead to long latency under workloads that mix long-running and short transactions with varying priorities. This occurs because worker threads tend to monopolize CPU cores until they finish processing long-running transactions. Thus, short transactions must wait for the CPU, leading to long latency. As an alternative, cooperative scheduling allows for transaction yielding, but it is difficult to tune for diverse workloads. Although preemption could potentially alleviate this issue, it has seen limited adoption in DBMSs due to the high delivery latency of software interrupts and concerns on wasting useful work induced by read-write lock conflicts in traditional lock-based DBMSs. In this paper, we propose PreemptDB, a new database engine that leverages recent userspace interrupts available in modern CPUs to enable efficient preemptive scheduling. We present an efficient transaction context switching mechanism purely in userspace and scheduling policies that prioritize short, high-priority transactions without significantly affecting long-running queries. Our evaluation demonstrates that PreemptDB significantly reduces end-to-end latency for high-priority transactions compared to non-preemptive FIFO and cooperative scheduling methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".